TexasDebbie Huffman, North Central Texas CollegeMary J Combs, Quality Measures Mary J. Combs has over 20 years of experience in higher education and healthcare working with faculty as an instructional designer to create student-focused curricula using assessment data and program evaluation. She also has experience working with community-based organizations advancing health equity through data-driven strategies and providing performance feedback to improve clinical education. Combs excels in qualitative and quantitative analysis, project management, and delivering impactful training programs. She holds a master’s degree in occupational and technical studies (business and industry training). As a Senior Evaluator at Quality
AbstractThis paper demonstrates the design and implementation of an innovative gamified softwareapplication for learning human-spoken languages. The game serves as an interactive and enjoyablesupplement to aid the learning process of different languages for elementary-aged children. At its core,the application uses a translation Application Programming Interface (API) to process text and outputtranslations in the target language chosen by the learner. Additionally, it is AI-enabled, allowing theutilization of APIs such as OpenAIs’s ChatGPT to enhance the translation capabilities. Provided is abasic proof of concept that was developed as part of the Final Pi Project in the Intermediate ComputerProgramming (COSC 1352) course. The gamified program was
the clicker study where questions from the end-of-course evaluations did notreveal any apparent differences between the clicker and control classes2. The NSSE annualsurvey of freshmen and seniors asks students how often they have, for example, participated inprojects that required integrating ideas or information from various sources, used e-mail tocommunicate with an instructor, asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions,received prompt feedback from faculty on their academic performance, participated incommunity- based projects, or tutored or taught other students. The findings are used todetermine how successful a university is at engaging students4.Sometimes student feedback contradicts the results associated with
Paper ID #37206Strategies for Continuous Improvement in ETAC of ABET Programs: ANovelApproachProf. Ravi C. Manimaran, Department Chair, Engineering Technology, Austin Peay State University Ravi C. Manimaran is Professor and Chair of the Department of Engineering Technology, Austin Peay State University. His education includes two Master of Science degrees in Electrical and Computer Engi- neering and Electronics and Control Engineering. He has been dynamically involved in higher education leadership as a Dean, Department Chair, Project Director, and a faculty member since 1997. He has served as the PI / Co-PI of multiple
that orbital debris is an issue, butconflict starts when deciding who should do what to solve the problem [16]. The lesson wasdesigned to introduce students to the exploration of macroethics without pushing them to a‘panic zone’ in which they would disengage and shut down [17]. Future lessons will build ontheir confidence by presenting more disputed topics.A table outlining the agenda of the 80-minute macroethics lesson is provided in Appendix A.While students walked into the classroom (a large lecture hall with stadium-like seating anddesks), we presented what we called the “hook.” We projected a paragraph-long issue brief on1 The authors note that they learned post-lesson and wish to help educate others that “stakeholders” is not
STEM [4]. So, although this research project applies to all UD faculty, engineering and relatedfaculty are disproportionately involved and impacted.UD has also been investing in improving departmental climates and diversity, equity, andinclusion on campus. As part of this work, in spring 2020, UD faculty participated in theCOACHE Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey. This survey, developed at the Harvard GraduateSchool of Education, measures faculty perceptions of various aspects of worklife. Despiteconducting the survey in spring 2020, a semester significantly disrupted by the COVID-19pandemic, UD’s survey response rate was 40%. COACHE determined that most responses werecollected before the disruption and performed a special analysis to determine
. Derrick James Satterfield, University of Nevada, Reno Derrick Satterfield is a doctoral candidate in Engineering Education at the University of Nevada, Reno. His research focuses on engineering graduate students’ experiences and motivation centered on career planning and preparation.Dr. Adam Kirn, University of Nevada, Reno Adam Kirn is an Associate Professor of Engineering Education at University of Nevada, Reno. His research focuses on the interactions between engineering cultures, student motivation, and their learning experiences. His projects involve the study of studenDr. Alexandra Coso Strong, Florida International University As an assistant professor of engineering education at Florida International University
. Having an understanding of what contributes to barriers to belongingness has helpedinform the scope and data analysis of this project. In summary, the three barriers to belongingdiscussed were faculty interaction with women students, negative interactions with men-identifying peers, and stereotype threat.Research Statement While the literature abounds with studies evaluating the impact of varying REU programson student participants, less attention has been placed on evaluating specifically the experiencesof women REU participants. It is important to ensure that these experiences are inclusive andcontribute to positive experiences for all students, including women students. The researchquestions for this study seek to investigate: (1) How
engagement projects, evaluation tools and tech- nology, and gender issues in STEM education. https://orcid.org/0000- 0002-0383-0179Prof. Marcela Silva, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago, Chile Marcela Silva is the Academic Director at the Engineering Faculty of the Andres Bello University in Campus Santiago. She works as a teacher in the Construction Engineering career and supports innovation and entrepreneurship courses. She obtained a BacheloDr. Carolina Alvarado, California State University, Chico Dr. Alvarado is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Science Education at California State University, Chico. She holds a bachelor’s degree in Engineering Physics and a doctorate in Physics Education from
Psychology, vol. 52, no. 2,p. 196, 2005.[48] J. S. Bruner, The Process of Education. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1960.[49] D. DiBiasio, L. Comparini, A. G. Dixon, and W. M. Clark, “A project-based spiralcurriculum for introductory courses in ChE: III. Evaluation,” Chemical Engineering Education,vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 140–146, 2001.[50] Lohani, Vinod K, M. L. Wolfe, T. Wildman, K. Mallikarjunan, and J. Connor,“Reformulating general engineering and biological systems engineering programs at VirginiaTech,” Advances in Engineering Education, vol. 2, no. 4, p. n4, 2011.[51] S. Vemuru, S. Khorbotly, and F. Hassan, “A spiral learning approach to hardwaredescription languages,” in 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems(ISCAS
engineering courses, inquiry-based learning in mechanics, and design projects to help promote adapted physical activities. Other professional interests include aviation physiology and biomechanics.Dr. Benjamin David Lutz, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Ben D. Lutz is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering Design at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He is the leader of the Critical Research in Engineering and Technology Education (CREATE) group at Cal Poly. His research interests include critical pedagogies; efforts for diversity, equity, and inclusion in engineering, engineering design theory and practice; conceptual change and understanding; and school- to-work transitions for new engineers
belonging inmathematics classrooms? The PLC was part of a larger NSF-funded project entitled Student Engagement inMathematics through an Institutional Network for Active Learning (SEMINAL). The project is a5-year initiative examining departmental change efforts to infuse active learning teachingstrategies into precalculus and calculus courses. During the outset of this project, it becameapparent that although departments were concerned with issues of equity and inclusion, mostdepartment members communicated that they needed additional support engaging with thesetopics. As such, we developed a professional learning community (PLC) and invited instructorsfrom nine universities to participate in a year-long series exploring issues of equity
stereotyped groups, we tested theimpacts of four different social markers instructors might share with their students: gender, race,sexual identity, and First-Generation College Student status (FGCS). Data from this study comesfrom student survey responses (n=19,191) on the Student Post-Secondary Instructional PracticesSurvey as part of the NSF-funded Progress Through Calculus project, which examined studentreports of introductory mathematics programs across the United States. We analyzed the datausing a cumulative link mixed model on the survey items related to instructional practice,academic performance, and affective beliefs to determine which items exhibited a minoritizedrole model effect. Out of the 58 survey items, 25 items exhibited a
Paper ID #33277Identifying the Proactive Actions of Newly Hired Engineers During theSocialization PeriodMs. Yun Dong, Iowa State University Yun is a Ph.D. student in the Human Computer Interaction (HCI) program at Iowa State University (ISU). She is currently involved in the research project titled Workplace Socialization in the Aerospace Engi- neering Profession, identifying the actions of managers and newly hired engineers during the socialization process into aerospace engineering companies.Mr. Subhanwit Roy, Iowa State University Subhanwit Roy received his B.Tech. degree in electronics and communication engineering
Paper ID #34670Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS) for Promoting Reflection in EngineeringEducation: Graduate Student PerceptionsDr. Ryan C. Campbell, Texas Tech University Having completed his Ph.D. through the University of Washington’s interdisciplinary Individual Ph.D. Program (see bit.ly/uwiphd), Dr. Campbell is now a Postdoctoral Research Associate at Texas Tech Uni- versity. He currently facilitates an interdisciplinary project entitled ”Developing Reflective Engineers through Artful Methods.” His scholarly interests include both teaching and research in engineering educa- tion, art in engineering, social justice
in this article.Dr. Marie Stettler Kleine’s research on humanitarian and integrated engineering programsinspired her reflection on how different forms of contextualization and the vocabulary used todescribe them signal different ways to best teach engineers. Her graduate training in science andtechnology studies and human-centered design prepared her to see that these forms ofcontextualization are much more nuanced than using particular language, but this varyinglanguage fundamentally changes the engineering pedagogy in practice. She continues tointerrogate why and how engineering educators learn from other disciplines to explicitlyprioritize contextualization.For Dr. Kari Zacharias, this project has been an opportunity to reflect on the
Center forDesign Research in Mechanical Engineering at Stanford.Dr. Nanami Furue, Tokyo University of Science Nanami Furue received her Ph.D. degree from the Graduate School of Commerce and Management, Hitotsubashi University. She has been working as an Assistant Professor of the School of Management, Tokyo University of Science and teaches Product Planning and Design Thinking. She has conducted several research projects in the field of marketing, innovation and design. Her major research interest is comparison of idea generation and selection of new product development among different countries and occupations.Chunchen Xu American c Society for Engineering
American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Engaging Women Engineering Undergraduates as Peer Facilitators in Participatory Action Research Focus GroupsABSTRACTThis study is part of a longitudinal research project examining the design of summer bridge andsubsequent undergraduate engineering programs at a public university in New England, with thelong-term view of how these programs can create more supportive, inclusive environments forwomen to become engaged as leaders in their educational pathways and future careers. Asummer bridge program prepares first-year women engineering students for the academic andcultural opportunities and challenges they may face. Through an immersion in focus
and professional development along with academic development, theseparticular HIP became a focus of our study. Collaborative Assignments & Projects Writing- Common Intensive Intellectual Courses experiences Senior First Year Culminating
of Maryland, Baltimore County Dr. Wendy Carter-Veale previously served as the Interim Director of AGEP PROMISE Academy Al- liance(APAA). Currently, she is the Internal Evaluator for APAA, Social Science Research Coordinator, and the Dissertation Coach for the Graduate School at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and has worked with faculty, graduate students, and administrators at UMCP and UMB. She has been involved with graduate student retention, institutional survey administration, and with AGEP projects as a Dissertation Coach for PROMISE: Maryland’s AGEP, the University of Michigan AGEP, and the University of Pittsburgh’s Pitt STRIVE AGEP. She is a quantitative social science researcher and lead
LGBTQ+engineering students as well as students with other minority or underrepresented identities. Manyof these programs include providing shared spaces for students to inhabit and interact with eachother, such as multicultural engagement centers, department-sponsored minority studentorganizations, and gender and sexuality centers. These spaces present an interesting physicallocale and cultural context to explore the experiences of LGBTQ+ engineering students, as theyare inherently intended to make engineering feel more inclusive for LGBTQ+ engineeringstudents. This study, part of a broader project on the experiences of LGBTQ+ engineering studentsmore generally, attempts to answer the following research questions: 1. How do LGBTQ
scores is shown inFigure 8, where a “ceiling effect” is observable and can be attributed to a testing threat to internalvalidity. This effect is expected (refer to Section 4) and led to the development and inclusion ofthe self-efficacy scale to the instrument. Table 3: Final EFA Pattern Matrix. Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Survey Item Factor I feel confident in my ability to: 1 2 3 4 Q1. Establish goals for a project .193 .536 -.095
undergraduateengineering programs. Many of these clubs are associated with professional organizations - e.g.Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE),Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES) - that promote professional development throughtechnical project competitions, conferences, and networking events. However, the ways in whichclubs help in professional formation and the specific forms of learning within clubs is poorlyunderstood [10]. Hinkle and Koretsky investigated the experiences of three different student clubsand found three different sets of learning outcomes [10]. Those learning outcomes would all beconsidered valuable and included: creativity and experimentation in one club, deep technicalexperience and industry
- puter Engineering and (by courtesy) Engineering Education and Director of the Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) Program at Purdue University. She holds a B.S.E.E., M.S.E.E., and Ph.D. in Engineer- ing Education, all from Purdue. Prior to this she was Co-Director of the EPICS Program at Purdue where she was responsible for developing curriculum and assessment tools and overseeing the research efforts within EPICS. Her research interests include the professional formation of engineers, diversity, inclusion, and equity in engineering, human-centered design, engineering ethics, and leadership.Mr. Sean Eddington, Purdue University Sean Eddington (Ph.D., Purdue University) will be an assistant professor of Communication
choose not to undertakean engineering project in that time or place).While we might count it a victory for some of the non-canonical canons to move, in time, intothe accepted professional society codes, that is the not the primary purpose of creating thisalternative stream of ideals in engineering ethics. Rather we hope to illuminate the politicalnature of the process, the ways insider-outsider dynamics play out in professional societies, andthe contestation of what counts and does not count as engineering.IntroductionWhat are the processes by which professional societies develop Codes of Ethics, and how doesinstitutional power shape both processes and outcomes? Who counts as a moral agent? Who issubject to the code? Does the existence of a code
about the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Dr. Bell also conducts research and develops resources for integrating technology into science teaching. Dr. Bell has maintained strong ties to public schools through a variety of collaborative projects. Most recently, he completed a 28 million-dollar US DOE-funded I3 project designed to provide research-based professional development to Virginia’s elementary and secondary science teachers. The author of more than 170 articles, chapters and books, Randy currently serves as Associate Dean of Academics and Professor of Science Education in the College of Education at Oregon State University. c American Society for Engineering Education
engineers. Peers slept in the residence halls,ate, and participated in activities with the girls in four teams of about ten each. In all, generallyabout 25 staff and volunteers (75% of them women) have helped in some way, each year. Acrosseleven years, the total volunteer base has grown to more than 200 individuals who havesupported the program in some way, including students, community members, and members ofthe regional workforce. The camp is offered over a two-day period, with an overnightexperience. Activities span a spectrum of topics, designed to engage participants in projects thatrequire them to “think like an engineer” such as: • The Prosthetic Hand problem – using only given materials, design a 3-finger prosthetic hand that can
curriculum materials to create a learning environment where all students canfully participate in engineering design? What kinds of classroom norms do we need to establishfor productive engineering work to take place? These questions may be especially important inschools where students do not frequently have opportunities to engage with their peers in thekind of collaborative decision-making required by engineering design. To begin to answer these important questions, we are conducting a multi-year design-basedresearch project investigating engineering language and literacy demands, resources, andsupports in economically disadvantaged urban U.S. elementary classrooms using the EiEcurriculum. This work involves identifying more and less
entailed a “big learning curve.” His writing in graduate schoolhas covered a wide range of documents. He wrote class reports in some classes, essays for asuccessful application for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP), severalsections of a draft paper that was never published, and was working on his own first papersubmission at the time of the interview. He had also written a new project and the tutorialmaterials for students for a class when he was a Teaching Assistant (TA), creating step-by-stepinstructions for the students to follow. In addition, he had written protocols for animal researchinvolving surgery on rats. He specifically mentioned that these protocols had to follow a veryrigorous template, and that it was important to
? MethodParticipants Students (n = 15, 9 male) in the target classroom attended an urban elementary school inthe midwestern United States. Most students (75%) qualified for free or reduced lunch. Threestudents had Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). In addition, post-interview assessmentscores from the Assessment of Mechanistic Reasoning Project (AMRP) were compared withthose from a group of 112 participants (Table 1) from a previous study. This comparison group 9was used to measure those scores from participants in this study against a diverse group who hadnot engaged in the curriculum. Table 1. Comparison Group Respondents Number included in analysis Elementary