and in the same way peer pressure kept them from acting in the first place, theyare more likely to follow and assist now that the dam’s been broken.Another term to mention is pluralistic ignorance. If a large group is not reacting to something, anindividual will often stay quiet assuming that, since no-one else is saying anything, their opinionmust be in the minority and/or wrong. Maybe every person in the room agrees that somethingshould be done but if no individual stands up and says something, silence is consent and they allfeel that they are alone. In class, everyone might be lost but if no-one asks a question, then eachindividual assumes they are the only one that doesn’t understand.The school requires us to take intervention training
(BSE) degree programs. Upon arriving at ISU in 2006, he led the development of the BSE program, and this program now enrolls over 100 students. Raman also runs multiple summer research internship programs through his roles in CBiRC and CenUSA – over 200 students have participated in summer pro- grams he directed over the past decade. In his role as Pyrone Testbed Champion for CBiRC, Raman and his students have developed early-stage technoeconomic models of bioprocessing systems. His graduate students have gone on to faculty positions at peer institutions, and to engineering leadership positions at companies including Cargill, Nestle, and Merck.Dr. Monica H. Lamm, Iowa State UniversityProf. Sriram Sundararajan, Iowa
sustainability assessments of biopolymers and biofuels, and design and analysis of sustainable solutions for healthcare. Since 2007, she has lead seven federal research projects and collaborated on many more, totaling over $7M in research, with over $12M in collaborative research. At ASU, Dr. Landis continues to grow her research activities and collaborations to include multidisciplinary approaches to sustainable systems with over 60 peer-reviewed publications. Dr. Landis is dedicated to sustainability engineering education and outreach; she works with local high schools, after school programs, local nonprofit organizations, and museums to integrate sustainability and engineering into K-12 and undergraduate curricula.Prof
toreflect on their own process by writing blog posts every time they finished a role.As mentioned before, S. G. Adams et al. (2002) model guided our study, therefore wedeveloped several interventions in the classroom to make sure we were offering the studentswith each construct of the proposed model. Details as follows: • Common purpose: The primary grade in the design course was based on teams’ development of their design project. Every team had a common purpose (i.e. the real design problem to solve by the engineering team). • Clearly defined goals: teams were required to develop quantifiable and commonly agreed goals, based on the needs of all the tracks. • Psychological safety: students were trained on safety for
statement, design constraints, and criteria for design evaluation. In allsemesters the instruction discussed the topic and provided examples of each with in-classdiscussion. In the hybrid semesters additional in-class time was available for the students tobreak into groups and spend time attempting to write their own mission statement, list ofconstraints and evaluation criteria. This in-class time for attempting to define their ownstatements for a design resulting in much lengthier and engaging in-class discussion of this topic.These in-class exercises and hands-on attempts were done for each step of the design process. Inaddition, the same five 2-D Mastercam labs (#1-5) were used in all three semesters. Data wasplotted in Figure 1 to show how many
not imply your immediatesuccess in the new one. In my case, I struggled to implement a learner-centered approach whentransitioning from face-to-face teaching to an online environment. Teaching an online class is acompletely different experience and I also had a much larger class size (more than 400). I had toexcel not only as a course coordinator, subject matter expert, and facilitator of learningexperiences, but also as a manager and mentor of undergraduate peer mentors (AKAundergraduate teaching assistants). Therefore, the big question that arose was: How can Isucceed in all of these roles to create an effective online learning environment?Issues in online teaching due to my transition from face-to-faceIn my first experience as an online
[19]conducted work in the same realm ofculture-based education for Native American students by investigating the use of culture inteaching mathematics. This work introduced the idea of “identity accomplishment confusion,” Work in Progress: Seeking Wa:k Community Perceptions in Engineering 4where culture compromises the learning of fundamental skills. Although this report providesexamples of how teaching methods (e.g., peer learning) have had positive results in teachingfundamental mathematics among Native American students, it concedes that culturally infusedmethods have not been evaluated. This study also acknowledges Native Americans cannot andshould not be homogenized due to various environments, and
concepts. Both the TA and the instructor for this coursereinstated during the interview that having students work in groups would create moreopportunities for interaction between students, and thus make the classroom more engagingthrough peer-to-peer learning as opposed to a situation where the instructor simply works outproblems on the white-board. Furthermore, the instructor was very supportive of his TA tryinginnovative teaching methods that are not very common or frequently used in the departmentcourses as long as the goal was to improve student engagement. For this class of 40 students, theone and a half hour long, once-a-week discussion section was divided into 2 equal groups andoccurred in back-to back sessions following a half hour break
even prior to the NGSS shows that design problems can be an effectivecontext for the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning [3], [4], [5]. However,questions remain about how to scaffold integrated science and engineering learning experiencesso that they provide all students with opportunities to develop disciplinary practices in bothscience and engineering. When students shift between inquiring into a phenomenon anddesigning a solution to a problem, do they need different kinds of support for documenting theirwork meaningfully, collaborating with peers, or working with data to support explanation andargumentation? Although curriculum developers and educators often intend for students toconnect scientific findings to inform design
)Team Dynamic (Team vs. Individual Orientation)Motivation (Leadership)Planning (Leadership)Self-assessment (Leadership)Teammates (Leadership)An open-ended question was also included: Write a few paragraphs about your experience playing Pandemic in class. Talk about what you thought or felt while playing. Consider reflecting on what you and your fellow players did during the game. What happened and why? Also, note anything useful that you believe you have learned.Initial resultsIn conjunction with the high school teacher, the data entries were made anonymous withindividual students receiving codes so that additional data that may be taken from them in thecourse of the
summers, engaging in engineering research and writing pre-college engineering curricula. Her research interests include physics and engineering education and teacher professional development. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Integrating Authentic Engineering Design into a High School Physics Curriculum (Work in Progress)Background and ObjectivesThe Framework for K-12 Science Education calls for the integration of engineering practicesinto pre-college science classrooms [1], because “providing students a foundation in engineeringdesign allows them to better engage in and aspire to solve the major societal and
and feedbackfrom the pilot course. According to Harriman5, the key to effective curriculum is makingsure that the needs of the student, the instruction, and the delivery mechanism are allcongruent with one another. Before being able to meet the needs of the students, theinstructor must know what those needs are. Because there are many various learning styles,the curriculum has implemented one of the more popular style surveys VARK (Visual, Aural,Reading & Writing, Kinesthetic). VARK is sometimes criticized for lacking empiricalsupport but continues to remain popular in education6.The curriculum has also incorporated the Community of Enquiry Framework7 by whichpresents the concept that students participating in community engagement can
skills through writing and open-ended questions can closelyapproximate the type of problems they will face on the job16. Based on the student responses, theinstructor can choose to either continue with further instruction or pause to clarify anymisconception and promote class discussion. At the end of the semester, students were asked to complete an anonymous survey on theBlackboard learning management system to gauge their attitude and experiences with this pollingsystem. Page 26.1765.4Figure 1. A snapshot of a multiple choice question in a PowerPoint slide, and student responseson PollEverywhere.com from Graphical Communications.Figure 2. A
to give presentations on data science applications of theirprojects. This exercise develops the student’s communication skills in preparation for nationalconferences and other formal presentations.Professional Development. To cultivate student skills beyond the laboratory, the Bridge programregularly hosts professional development workshops and seminars. Sessions occur during the academicyear monthly at NCSU and bi-weekly at NCCU. Sample topics include: ● Exploring non-traditional careers and networking ● Communicating your science to diverse audiences ● Graduate student mental health and wellness ● Entrepreneurship ● Literature searches and library resources ● Writing personal statements ● Graduate school
maintain a log book for the duration of the project. Thislog book could be examined by the instructor at any time. Two interim written reports wererequired. At the conclusion of the project, an oral presentation was given, in which all of thestudents participated. Finally, after a short space of time for a final edit based on comments fromthe oral presentation, a final written report was submitted. The students received both an individual and a team grade for the course. The individualgrade was based on the student’s performance within the team, as evaluated both by the Page 13.1410.4instructor and by the student’s peers. Peers twice
to new instructors as theylearn to teach. Many are the way of ABET, faculty and student evaluations, and the expectationsof ones peers. They have been updated to reflect the changing methodologies of teaching andthe “student centeredness” of learning in Chickering and Gamson’s3 "Seven principles for goodpractice in undergraduate education." 1. Encourages contacts between students and faculty. 2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students. 3. Uses active learning techniques. 4. Gives prompt feedback. 5. Emphasizes time on task. 6. Communicates high expectations. 7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning.Note that there is no reference to knowing the subject matter as this is certainly a given
of South Carolina Beaufort (USCB) studying Computer Science, soon to graduate in December of 2021. I am a first generation college student within my family in the United States. I take an interest in learning how technological solutions are utilized and the effectiveness of these solu- tions. Additionally, I want to be able to understand real-world problems and potential solutions to assess these issues. During the summer of 2021, I took the opportunity to work with an early learning organization, The Children’s Center (TCC), in South Carolina. Continuing the project started by a peer at USCB and working with another peer the summer of 2021, I learned the importance of working with real world problems and
integratedactivities, the program has been brought back to 183 students. Figure 1 depicts the enrollmentdata for the manufacturing engineering program. It clearly shows a precipitous decline after theinitial startup spike and highlights a period of growth as a result of the recruiting strategies used.Since there has been a steady enrollment increase since 2004, it is unclear whether a true steady-state enrollment has been found. At the time of writing, the Fall 2007 applications are exceedingany prior year application rates. Historically, the manufacturing engineering program has aaccepted application fall show rate of roughly 70 percent, thus indicating Stout’s program is afirst choice program for students. This show rate is significantly higher than most
, sponsorsand each other.TeamingAfter the first year it was apparent that the students needed more team-work skills. An entirelecture and lab period dedicated to basic team skills along with team check up surveys have beenadded to the class. The challenge to keep students on a functioning team for twenty weeks cannotbe understated. Formal teaming knowledge, skills and attitudes are stressed and the students aretaught Tuckman’s ideas of team development based on “Forming, Storming, Norming andPerforming.”4 There is also training on communication and conflict resolution. The studentstake the CATME5 online survey several times during the project and receive peer feedback ontheir teaming performance. Finally the students are made aware of Social Styles
it helps create a feeling of community and classroom cohesion. Students get to know the instructor and other students through verbal interactions.Disadvantages of Asynchronous On-line Learning - Lack of human contact. Some students need or want the face-to-face contact with instructors and other students. Some students say that they learn better when they can see a person's face and converse in real time with a peer or instructor. - Requires self-discipline. The primary drawback of asynchronous on-line learning is that students must be self-disciplined. Students must take the initiative to login to participate in on-line discussion groups and to complete other course assignments. Some students
variety of ways. The program fundedPh.D. and post-doctoral fellowships for women researchers. Seminars and workshops targetwomen graduate students and faculty members and address skill attainment in writing grantproposals, interviewing for academic jobs, negotiating academic job offers, and obtainingleadership roles within the university. The project also assists university deans, department headsand administrators to identify and address unconscious bias, to institute diverse hiring practices,and to develop mentoring programs for faculty. The program supports faculty recruitment though Page 14.530.4a visiting scholar program and collaboration
Page 14.234.7divide fractions?) or processed based (What percentage of my grade is for the final exam?). Theanswers given do not have to be just text and may incorporate short videos and other graphics.The future of natural language knowledge bases could include peer-to-peer questions andanswers as well as student-to-teacher questions and answers. If students ask questions and otherstudents answer those questions, the faculty members could appoint teaching assistants to editand add the responses without having to write answers individually to every question asked. Thefuture will certainly include empowering end-users to answer questions for other end-users withor without review by authorized editors and having those answers included (as many
where there wassubstantial disagreement or controversy; and revoted they felt appropriate.Because each participant brought their own experience to the survey process, it is not possible tobase the results of the survey on any literature review. However, because of this systematicapproach we felt that the most highly rated topics and items represented a consensus view of theparticipants.Phase 2 - Review of Results and Creation of Continuous Improvement ReportAfter the survey was completed an internally peer-reviewed continuous improvement report wasprepared. The purpose of the report was to analyze the results of the survey and make arecommendation to the department for further action. The review criteria were:1) Is the interpretation of the
AC 2009-1897: PROMOTING UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH IN ECE (PURE):CONNECTING UNDERGRADUATES WITH GRADUATE RESEARCH MENTORSKuang Xu, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Kuang Xu is a senior in Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He conducted research on PAPR reduction for beamforming OFDM networks under Dr. Douglas L. Jones during his Junior year. He is currently working on peer-to-peer live streaming under Dr. Bruce Hajek. He is Director of the Promoting Undergraduate Research in ECE (PURE) program.Elizabeth Van Ruitenbeek, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Elizabeth Van Ruitenbeek is an Electrical and Computer Engineering graduate student
concepts of delegation and direction, and the difference between leadership andmanagement.Students are also given the opportunity to use a 360 self-evaluation instrument developed byMerrell to help them identify their strengths and weaknesses as leaders and as seen by others.They are then expected to formulate one area in which they can improve, work on that areaduring the semester, and write their observations in a paper submitted at the end of the course.To serve as a ‘capstone’ type of project for the leadership section of the course, the students areasked to develop a personal leadership theory and defend it in a short paper.Question 1: Do the students see themselves as leaders?Although, no formal assessment was made of the students during the
number of years. We are currentlyattempting to use the teams more extensively for assisting in identifying instructional process improvementopportunities. Students have been serving as facilitators on TQM teams and in the fall terms of 1994 and 1995senior engineering students were used to assist teams in the Engineering Orientation (ENGR 111) course. TheENGR 111 facilitators are required to write a report at the end of the term detailing their experiences withfacilitation and making recommendations on how to improve the course. From this student feedback, it becameapparent that they were being expected to fill a role that they essentially had no formal preparation to fill.Facilitators were often selected for their maturity, professionalism, and
grade levels and to thelist of 21st Century Skills so teachers who use these curriculum units can know which contentstandard each TIME Kit will meet.Each unit is put through a three-step evaluation process: peer-to-peer evaluation with anotherteacher in the workshop; evaluation by a web development expert and engineering professor; andevaluation by a curriculum expert who evaluates the unit from a pedagogical perspective. Aftereach unit passes all three evaluation steps, it is posted to the Solution Site. The Solution Site(www.thesolutionsite.com) was developed as part of a 1998 USDE Technology InnovationChallenge Grant. The site contains over 1200 units of instruction in all subject areas developedby teachers for classroom implementation. All
, few details are provided until Thompson[5]wrote an article in 2001 that defined the types of unique resources used by engineers. Theseinclude standards, specifications, technical reports (both governmental and non-governmental),government documents (local, state, and federal), patents, and manufacturers’ resources (nowlargely available on the Web). His article does not address the specific organizations andresources used by civil engineers. While discussing building a new collection, Brin[6] mentions afew specific resources of use to civil engineers. Another civil engineer, Chanson,[7] writes aboutissues relating to publish or perish for the civil engineering researcher. He makes the point that“[t]he cost of traditional libraries and
students also need to have confidence in their own skillsin engineering and a network of peers and mentors who can support them through their studiesand their careers [5]. Another important element, especially for girls, is having a role model towhom they can relate on a personal level, rather that a role model who is perceived as being astar in the field and thus unapproachable [3]. This indicates that undergraduate women inengineering could effectively mentor younger students because they would be able to relate tothem as individuals. Finally, the assessment of one longitudinal program that brought scienceinto elementary schools indicated that parents increased the amount of time spent talking aboutscience with their children over the course of
related to developing ways to transport lunar regolith(the fine particles covering the lunar surface) for processing; the sophomore teams chose fromamong 14 provided projects. However, it appears that none of projects required the fabricatingand testing of a “design”. The only product of the projects was a final report which was gradedusing a rubric. It appears that at least 80% of the grading related to technical writing skills andnot “design”. The remaining 20% was evaluated on the basis of the team’s ability to “developand justify a feasible solution.” The grades for the freshman projects were essentiallyindependent of team makeup for three of the four team categories (Overall grading and thegrading of the “solution” portion varied by less