and engineering identity, if it exists, could alloweducators and researchers to quantitatively measure engineering identity and gain further insightinto motivational patterns.Theoretical FrameworkThis work-in-progress focuses on uncovering patterns between engineering identity andacademic motivation. Both constructs involve student self-perception. This study closelyexamines how students perceive themselves as engineers, how they perceive success, and howthey respond to failure. Our work is grounded in several theories that report on these perceptions.IdentityIdentity is defined in this study as how a student perceives themselves to fit in a group [1]. Thisstudy focuses specifically on engineering identity, which can simply be defined as how
the content of essays andresearch papers in general writing courses [1]. Second, not only do the types of audiences varymore in engineering but so do the audiences’ levels of knowledge about the content. Yet a thirddifference is that the expected level of precision in engineering writing is higher than theexpected precision in general writing [2, 3]. Still a fourth difference is the complexity ofengineering formats, which have to account for incorporation of illustrations, equations, sections,and appendices. Until students learn the principles of engineering writing, a significant gap exists betweenwhat those students have experienced in general writing courses and what those students areexpected to produce in reports for design courses
activitiesby participants, and the mentorship required by program instructors (engineering faculty,graduate students, and undergraduate student mentors), the participant pool was limited, and thepopulation for the camp was 45 students. Table 1 shows the demographics of the participants.Table 1. Demographics of student participants Category Number (Percentage) Age in years N (%) 13 8 (17.7%) 14 37 (82.2%) Sex N (%) Male 34 (75.5%) Female
Bioengineering also at Clemson University. Dr. Gomil- lion’s long-standing research interests are in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Specifically, the work of her research group focuses on three general areas: (1) design and modification of biomaterial scaffolds to study cell-biomaterial interactions and to provide cues for directing cell behavior for tissue regeneration; (2) application of engineered tissues for aesthetic and functional tissue replacements; and (3) advanced application of tissue engineering strategies for developing in vitro tissue models for studying disease systems. Dr. Gomillion is committed to the integration of her biomedical interests with education research endeavors, with a specific
presentation skills in an Introduction to TechnicalCommunication course. In this initial study, we aim to: (1) provide a set of curricular materialsthat engineering educators can use to integrate reflection in any presentation assignment and (2)discuss self-reported student data regarding development of presentation skills. Students reportedthat viewing their recorded presentation and reflecting on their performance helped them gainconfidence and improve their presentation skills for future use.Although effective communication skills are required for success in all engineering disciplines,many programs do not teach technical communication for a variety of reasons, including lack ofinstructor experience or buy-in regarding the value of teaching
Demographics and Career Perceptions of Manufacturing (Work in Progress) Introduction While manufacturing continues to be considered the backbone of economic growth in theUnited States (Nadine & Gielczyk, 2018), manufacturers continue to express concerns related tothe availability of a skilled workforce to fill the projected workforce demands—3.5 millionavailable manufacturing jobs by the year 2025 (The Manufacturing Institute & Deloitte, 2015).The 2018 report by Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute revealed that manufacturingexecutives believe there to be three main factors contributing to this concern: (1) the retirementof the baby boomer population, (2) the shifting
teaches the additive manufacturing technology through the dedicated undergraduate (MET 4173) class as well as through the hands-on training sessions and certification (level 1 to 4) in the Endeavor Digital Manufacturing Maker Space.Mr. Aaron Alexander, Oklahoma State University Aaron Alexander is an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering Technology at Oklahoma State University. He received his BSE from Messiah College, his MSME from Purdue University, and his PhD from Oklahoma State University. Before entering academia he spent eleven years as an Acoustical/Noise Control Engineer in industry and still continues to consult in that field. His research interests are fluid flow, wind turbines
Paper ID #29807Work in Progress: Student and faculty perceptions of rotating facultyfacilitators for introductory biomedical engineering problem-basedlearningDr. Sara L Arena, Virginia Tech Sara L. Arena is a Collegiate Assistant Professor of Biomedical Engineering and Mechanics (BEAM) at Virginia Tech (VT), where she has been teaching since 2017. Prior to this position, Sara was an Assistant Professor of Exercise Science at High Point University (2013-2017). The BEAM Department at Virginia Tech offers two undergraduate programs: (1) Engineering Science and Mechanics and (2) Biomedical Engineering. Sara teaches
Northridge (CSUN). In 2009, he moved to Texas to work at the Science and Engineering Education Center, and Caruth Institute of Engineering Education. He specializes in Engineering, STEM, and Project Based Learning instruction. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Student Dispositions Toward STEM: Exploring an Engineering Summer Camp for Underrepresented Students (Work in Progress)IntroductionEngineering fields continue to evolve and grow rapidly [1], resulting in an increasing demand forskilled workers [2]. However, representation within engineering fields is often inequitable, withwomen, Latinos, and African
research interest include, Deformation & Failure Mecha- nisms, Materials Science, Fracture Mechanics, Process-Structure-Property Relationships, Finite Element Stress Analysis Modeling, Failure Analysis, ASME BPV Code Sec VIII Div. 1 &2, API 579/ASME FFS- 1 Code, Materials Testing and Engineering Education. Professionally registered engineer in the State of Texas (PE).Dr. Matilda (Tillie) Wilson McVay, Texas A&M University Associate Professor of Instruction, J. Mike Walker ’66 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University from 2006 - present (2020) Undergraduate Program Director, Department of Mechanical Engineering, from January 2017 - 2019 Lecturer, Department of Aerospace Engineering
developers.Faculty Development as Interdisciplinary Work In the work of faculty development, faculty developers bring their own disciplinarybackgrounds to their roles, collaborate across disciplines, and operate at disciplinary borderswithin institution-wide and discipline-specific academic units [1]. In this project, facultydevelopment is framed as interdisciplinary work where faculty developers work to integratemultiple perspectives towards creating educational solutions and supporting faculty and graduatestudents in the development of their teaching and learning practice. Within theseinterdisciplinary interactions, challenges and conflict may arise because academic disciplineshave different ways of seeing problems and different methods for problem
classrooms that are equally diverse. Divided into teams of five teachers of engineering foreach school level, TF's are creating guidelines for quality engineering instruction. In turn, theseguidelines are to be used by educators who want to incorporate engineering in their classroomsbut have little experience with the field and minimal access to professional development [1].While current support for such novice engineering teachers is often delivered in a "train-the-trainer" format using ready-made curricula, [2] TaLENt TF's are writing discrete sets of specific,measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART)[3] criteria that will facilitate K-12curricula development of customizable school-level engineering resource. TaLENt aims tosupport a
the course materials. Their levelsof engagement were monitored during the semester.Course DescriptionA junior level software engineering course, CIS 375 (Software Engineering 1), offered by theComputer and Information Science (CIS) department is organized as a 14 week, four credit-hourcourse. This is a required course taken by all computing majors in the CIS department whichincludes: Computer Science (CIS), Software Engineering (SE), Data Science (DS), andCybersecurity and Information Assurance (CIA). Pre-Covid19, this course was typically offeredusing a synchronous, face-to-face format with the live lectures being recorded for streaming on-demand by students taking the same course asynchronously. The ABET student outcomes forCIS 375 appear
, 2020WIP: The predictive power of engineering undergraduate students’ academicself-efficacy and test anxiety for their academic performance in a dynamicscourse Introduction Self-regulated learning (SRL) is a vital factor that positively affects students’performance in academic settings, as a wealth of study findings have shown [1], [2]. SRL hasreceived increasing attention from the engineering and technology education researchcommunities as of late [3]. Considering that low academic performance is one of the reasons thata large number of engineering students leave engineering majors and transfer to another major[4], it is important to explore factors that contribute to academic performance in
complimentary education on user-centered research methods toenhance their ability to define new opportunities, user behaviors, the use environment, and socialand cultural influences. Students will practice these techniques through clinical rotations andlearning forums at the Salem VA Medical Center (SAVMC) and Walter Reed National MilitaryMedical Center (WRNMMC), respectively. A pilot program with 15 students began in Spring2020. Student outcomes will be based on evaluating (1) the students’ ability to recognize unmetneeds that, if addressed, will benefit patients/providers and have the potential to supportcommercialization efforts, (2) the students’ appreciation for different roles and skill sets inmedical device development, and (3) the students
Education, 2020 Understanding Impact of a Design Thinking Intervention on Students’ Resilience (Work in Progress)IntroductionRecent developmental psychology research has revealed that, in an effort to protect youth fromharm/difficulties, current generations of students tend to be more sheltered from challengingopportunities [1]. As a result, students may be less able to cope with stressors and overcomeobstacles than earlier generations [2], making them underprepared for today’s demanding anddynamic work environment [3]. Many students do not possess the 21st Century skills needed toeffectively approach novel problems and produce innovative solutions [3],[4].In particular, individuals who have been sheltered from
troubleshooting process. Studentsexplore basic equipment operating principles, identify failures and repair devices as a team.In previous course iterations, students expressed unfamiliarity surrounding common parts criticalto equipment e.g. solenoid valves, IR sensors (personal experience). Guided inquiry hasdemonstrated benefits in bridging the scientific gap in knowledge in students as described byNworgu [1]. To address this unfamiliarity among women and men alike, an intervention in theform of guided worksheets was introduced and its effect on student performance assessed.MethodsThe course utilizes a flipped classroom format where all students watch lecture videos andcomplete course readings and pre-labs individually before class. In class, directions
their learning [1], [2]. TheMSLQ is one of the most extensively used scales designed to assess self-regulated learning [3].Pintrich and colleagues developed the MSLQ [2] to measure three components (motivation,metacognition, and behavior) of self-regulated learning [2]. It has been widely validated anddeployed in university engineering education settings. The MSLQ has two parts: Motivation and Learning Strategies. Motivation scales arecomposed of three dimensions (value, expectancy, and affective) with 31 items subdivided intosix subscales: intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsic goal motivation, task value, control beliefs,self-efficacy for learning and performance, and test anxiety. The learning strategies scalemeasures two dimensions
-known Stages of TeamDevelopment [1]. Based on these findings, the we propose a high-level conceptual framework ofgroup development specific to the development of collaborative communities aimed to supportresearch goals within engineering education. To confirm preliminary results, we are solicitingfeedback on the proposed conceptual framework.The field of Engineering Education is a relatively new discipline that has been growing innumber of researchers and students in recent years [2, 3]. Despite the recent development ofdepartments and degree-programs, many engineering education researchers lack supportstructures to contribute to their success and are often seen as lone wolves in their departments.Moreover, a number of issues including a
the UnitedStates that focus on promoting the development of youths' engineering identity and interest inSTEM-related career paths. In this paper, we present work in progress, focusing our discussion onrising 7th and 8th grade youth drawings and accompanying explanations of “an engineer in action,”as part of a summertime STEM summer outreach program for underrepresented minority middleschool youth. Our work is an adaptation of Draw an Engineer Test (DAET) [1] which focuses on thestereotypical understandings and (mis)conceptions adolescents have of scientists and engineers intraditional PK- 12 classroom settings. The context of this study, however, is an informal STEMlearning environment, entitled Bulls-Engineering Youth Experience for
[1]. The practice of connecting projects across years,classes, and student cohorts, and further linking these projects to research interests of the faculty,is a model of education that could benefit members of a university system at all levels [2-3].Programs such as the KEEN network [4] have provided both the resources necessary to rethinktraditional curricula in engineering. Likewise, pedagogical training has reduced the activationenergy required to engage in active learning strategies, specifically open-ended, project basedlearning [5]. This educational model has been cited as one method to increase student motivation,curiosity, and ultimately understanding of how engineering truly fits into the world [6-7]. As theinterrelatedness of
have contributed to their leadership learning. We began by exploring thenature of the adversities faced in engineering leadership. Using situated learning theory as ourprimary analytical lens, two main themes on leadership learning emerged through our dataanalysis: (1) Contextual awareness in managing and navigating constraints, with subthemessuch as “think in terms of systems,”1 recognize when to walk away, and foster a culture thatpromotes organizational success; and (2) Leveraging personal resources and experiences inleadership, with subthemes such as learn from (painful) experience, and rely on personalstrengths such as integrity and tenacity for guidance in leadership. The study also draws fromtheories of emotional intelligence, the
, digital image processing and analysis, and numerical approximation of partial differential equations on fixed and evolving domains. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Women enrolled in engineering programs: Their interests and goals Although women earn about half of science and engineering bachelor’s degrees, and 44%of master’s degrees, women are underrepresented in certain areas of science and engineering [1].According to the National Science Foundation, women received the highest amount of sciencedegrees in psychology and biosciences, and the lowest in computer sciences and engineering [1].Why are women entering the fields of psychology and biology
undergraduates do not rate themselves asbeing as creative as a “typical engineer”, and there is a strong association between self-ratings ofcreativity and professional identity. Engineering identity is discussed in the context ofparticipants’ reported goals for the conference and its benefits. Suggestions for promotingengineering identity are described.Introduction and BackgroundAs universities aim to address the gender gap problem of their engineering and computer sciencestudent population [1], recruiting and retaining women has become ever more critical. To thisend, a one-day annual Women in Engineering conference [2] was organized and hosted by alarge public university in the west. One overarching goal of the conference is to foster thedevelopment of
[1]. Between 2010 and 2017, almost half ofU.S. baccalaureate degree earners had done some coursework at a community college, and almost20% had earned an associate’s degree [3].The National Academy of Engineering (NAE) has highlighted the importance of communitycolleges in broadening participation in engineering because of the diversity they represent [4], [5].In fall 2017, approximately 43% of Hispanic undergraduates, 42% of American Indian/AlaskanNative undergraduates, and 35% of Black undergraduates were enrolled in two-year institutionsacross the United States [1]. Among women, 31% of undergraduate students were enrolled in two-year colleges in fall 2017 [1]. More attention to supporting students on the transfer pathway intoengineering
hasidentified student groups in engineering who are likely to struggle more or be disadvantagedcompared to majority White male students.Gender: Women make up 58.2% [1] of the population in the United States yet earn only 19.8%of all bachelor’s degrees in engineering and 24.2% of masters degrees [2] [3]. In the workforce,they represent only 14.5% of engineers [4]. Despite extensive efforts to reach gender parity inengineering [5], engineering remains stubbornly resistant to providing a compelling andwelcoming environment for women while other fields like biology and math have advanced tomuch greater gender balance at 60% and 42% of bachelor’s degrees granted to womenrespectively [6]. Women bring diversity of thought to engineering and their
that includedtransgender, gender-nonconforming, and an option to skip the question. The data set includedinterviews with the participants conducted at three, six, and twelve months of work. Interviewswere analyzed with multiple rounds of coding to determine which challenges articulated byparticipants were unique to women.Results indicate that women face many of the same challenges as men. Women also face a set ofunique challenges, which were sometimes overtly rooted in sexism.IntroductionSignificant research in the past few decades has documented the experiences and challenges thatwomen in engineering face, not only in a professional setting but also as engineering students[1], [2], [3]. However, few of these studies have reported on the
engineering and introduces some tools used for the design and implementation of devices and systems.Nicole Bosca American c Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Work-in-Progress – Integration of Voice Technology into First-Year Engineering CurriculumIntroductionThis is a work-in-progress paper. Voice technology is a growing field and is becoming moreprominent in our day-to-day lives. National Public Research, in a study conducted in early 2020,found that an estimated 60 million people (24% of total U.S. adult population) own a voice-enabled smart speaker [1]. The number of smart speakers in the U.S. household has grown by anastounding 135% in last
during the course toconstruct and program a tensile tester. This tensile tester is then used to conduct tests to determinemechanics propertiesCourses Utilizing Tensile-Tester Project The tensile tester project has been implemented into two different courses. The first course isStatics and Mechanics of Materials. This is a sophomore-level course required for students in allengineering disciplines. The second course is Applied Engineering Mechanics, a sophomore-levelcourse part of the controls and systems engineering technology program. Table 1 outlines thetopics covered in each class. Table 1. Course Topics in Approximate Order Introduced Statics and Mechanics Applied Mechanics of
by reflecting on doing and thence how we mightimprove the delivery of the course.In this paper, we briefly introduce the framework of a computer program used to process a largenumber of learning statements by way of providing context. We focus on comparing what studentslearned with what instructors expected the students to learn thus providing evidence-basedguidance to instructors on how to improve the delivery of AME4163 thus providing an initialanswer to the question posed above.1. Frame of ReferenceIndustry is facing an ever-changing environment. Many companies want their engineer employeesto have the ability to adapt to the changing environment [1]. From the education perspective,universities or colleges are also providing programs and