) Platinumcertified academic building, shown in Fig. (1)a, as a context to explore applications of the theorystudents’ learn. Another goal is to provide opportunities for hands-on experimentation withsystems that reflect professional practice. To achieve these goals, the ME151 course wasredesigned to incorporate a significant laboratory component. 7 These laboratory sessions exposestudents to practical applications of process control using two educational rigs from FeedbackInstruments. A level-flow rig allows students to control the flow of water or the level of a tank,while a temperature rig, shown in Fig. 1(b), allows students to control temperature by actuatingservo valves that regulate primary and secondary flows through a heat exchanger. Using bothrigs
experience,conceptualize, perceive, and understand various aspects of, and phenomena in, the world aroundthem.” Experiences and phenomena are perceived differently by each individual, sophenomenography seeks to describe the “collective human experience of phenomenaholistically” 29. Based in variation theory, phenomenographic studies result in the keycomponents that comprise the variation under investigation 25,30,31. These categories ofdescription “contain a variety of conceptions and thus indicate that there are differences in theways a phenomenon is understood” 32 and may be depicted as a taxonomy or hierarchy ofunderstanding. The categories of description do not represent the individual responses fromparticipants, but instead collectively reflect
for thisstage will come from snowball sampling methods, because non-completers are an invisible andsensitive population. Either quantitative or qualitative differences (or similarities) between the twogroups (current students vs non-completers) will be fascinating with respect to the graduateengineering socialization process in which writing is an invisible competency.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant1733594. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. References[1] Council of Graduate
and curricular materials development in other disciplines.Acknowledgements This material is based upon work supported by the National Science FoundationEngineering Education Program under Grant No. 1055356. Any opinions, findings andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and donot necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.Bibliography1. Nrc, ed. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. ed. J. Bransford, et al. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C. xxiii, 319 p. (1999).2. S. Vosniadou, ed. International Handbook of Conceptual Change. Routledge: New York. (2008).3. B.K. Hofer and P.R. Pintrich, The development of epistemological theories
expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. VI. REFERENCES[1] Halloun, I.A. and D. Hestenes, The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 1985. 53(11): p. 1043-‐1048. Page 23.299.4[2] Schell, J.W. and R.S. Black, Situated Learning: an inductive case study of a collaborative learning experience. Journal of Industrial Teacher
Faculty to Student Engagement in Engineering”, Journal of Engineering Education, July 2008. 3. Heller, R., Beil, C., Dam, K., and Haerum B., “Student and Faculty Perceptions of Engagement in Engineering”, Journal of Engineering Education, July 2010. 4. Chang, R., Richardson, J., Banky, G., Coller, B., Jaksa, M., Lindsay, E., and Maier H., “Practitioner Reflections on Engineering Student’s Engagement with e-Learning”, Advances in Engineering Education, Winter 2011. 5. Smith, K., Sheppard, S., Johnson, D., and Johnson, R., “Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom-Based Practices”, Journal of Engineering Education, January 2005. 6. Bjorklund, S. and Fortenberry, N., “Measuring Student and Faculty Engagement in
thefuture. During thesefocus groups, the Incident Cardteam will use the Describe an incident in the workplace that occurred within the first six months toCritical Incident three years after you’d first started working.Method (CIM) [3] to Does this incident reflect (check one):gather data on jobs Where you successfully performed a job task that you’d learned about in school?and tasks that are Where you were unsuccessful in performing a job task because your engineering education hadn’t prepared you to do it?essential forengineering. CIM What were the general circumstances leading up to this incident?involves gathering
number PRO-2022-237.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.2221511. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.References[1] Nielsen, N., & National Research Council (U.S.). Planning Committee on Evidence onSelected Innovations in Undergraduate STEM Education. (2011). Promising practices inundergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education: Summary of twoworkshops. National Academies Press.[2] National Research Council. (2011). Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation:America’s Science and Technology
H. Barclay, Jr. ’45 Faculty Fellow Award. Hammond has been featured on the Discovery Channel and other news sources. Hammond is dedicated to diversity and equity, which is reflected in her publications, research, teaching, service, and mentoring. More at http://srl.tamu.edu and http://ieei.tamu.edu. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Developing an Instructor’s interface for FossilSketch application to provide knowledge-sharing collaborations between science educators Anna Stepanova, Saira Anwar, Christina Belanger, Tracy HammondAbstractWe developed FossilSketch software for teaching the identification of microfossils
and contribute to the credibility of our future findings. By continuing ourongoing study, we hope to gain a better understanding of patterns between students’ identity andtheir engagement within capstone design and improve student’s experiences within capstonedesign courses.AcknowledgementsThis work was supported through funding by the National Science Foundation (Awards No.2138019 and No. 2138106). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe National Science Foundation.
. Since then, the outlook has not measurably improved 1 . A strong STEMworkforce sustains a robust U.S. economy and supports our national security 2,3 . Diversity inSTEM generates a variety of perspectives and approaches to scientific and technologicalinnovation, better reflects the global and culturally diverse economies of the 21st century, andproduces diverse science and engineering role models 4 . Because of their racially diverseenrollments, The National Academies of Sciences and Engineering Minority Serving Institutions:America’s Underutilized Resource for Strengthening the STEM Workforce report (2019)identifies that HSIs can contribute diversity to STEM.Of the estimated 569 U.S. HSIs, most are two-year institutions. 68% of HSIs are public
essential in improving students’ undergraduate experience and promotingacademic and career success [17]. Annual training workshops and other professionaldevelopment help faculty develop their mentoring skills and inspire reflection aboutpositionality, power and privilege to better support our diverse students.Adaptive Modifications of the Program and Lessons LearnedOver the last six years we have expanded the program by adding Information Technology,Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Civil Engineeringto the original list of eligible degrees–Biomedical Sciences, Environmental Science,Mathematics, and Computer Science. This has helped to provide space for our STEM-interestedpre-majors to remain in the program
you notes within a given set.Thematic Occurrence Counting (Ryan and Bernard, 2003) allowed us to generate the data thatwere used for the analysis. a. scholarshipNSF supported students were awarded up to a $10,000/year scholarship based on their need asdetermined by FAFSA and the financial aid office. COVID related loss-of income for somescholar’s families caused higher financial need which was not reflected in FAFSA. The averageneed for NSF supported students: Cohort 1 ~$18,750; Cohort 2: ~$24,000; Cohort 3: ~$24,000;Cohort 4: ~$30,500.As can be seen from the need values, there was substantial need in each of the cohorts that rosedramatically over the four cohorts, in part due to loss of financial opportunities for participatingstudents and
ensures that issues are identified and addressed promptly, helping the team adapt and make necessary adjustments. • Sprint Review: Scrum teams conduct regular sprint review meetings at the end of each sprint, where they showcase the completed work to stakeholders. This feedback session allows stakeholders to provide input, ask questions, and suggest changes to the product. • Sprint Retrospective: At the end of each sprint, Scrum teams hold sprint retrospectives. During these meetings, team members reflect on what went well, what didn't, and how to improve their processes. This feedback is essential for making continuous improvements and optimizing the team's agility, thereby improving the overall
member, (c) my contributions are valued by other SPVLab members, (d) my voice respected by other SPV Lab members, and that (e) I amgiven equal opportunities to fully participate in SPV Lab activities. 84% ofrespondents reported seeing others like themselves succeed in SPV lab.AcknowledgmentsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation underAward EEC-2055726. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect theviews of the National Science Foundation.References[1] Jordan, M. E., Zuiker, S., Wakefield, W., & DeLaRosa, M. (2021). Real work with realconsequences: Enlisting community energy engineering as an approach to
teachingabilities, even if the experience was not enjoyable for one of them; b) the middle-schoolers had 5fun and learned coding; and 3) there is a need to reach out to diverse groups and to the youngergeneration. In the focus group discussion, one student reflected that “I think as a whole, for us, todumb-down our research so they can understand a standard helps us to understand our material.Yes, it gave us a better understanding of our own project and the kids did have fun—that was agood purpose of the activity.” The dissatisfaction of the one student who disliked the activity isapparent in this exchange with notes from the program evaluator, “I was not a big fan of theoutreach activity. I do not like
certainty. Whereas the students in our previous study hadself-developed this “connecting” skill, our program provides a formal platform forlow-income students to learn and practice those connecting skills at the graduate level.This will allow us to investigate through pre- and post-surveys whether “connecting”skills can be developed through mentorship and whether developed connecting skillsenhance their self-efficacy, STEM identities, and persistence beliefs.This poster shares the results from student surveys completed at the beginning of our firstacademic year of the S-STEM program, reflecting on their undergraduate experiences.Specifically, we highlight the particular FOK held by our students as they enteredgraduate school from engineering and
data obtained independently from the five members of the research team were used togenerate point maps and cluster maps using multi-dimensional scaling that were useful indiscussions of the most useful documents to collect and to themes within data collection. We arecurrently incorporating this into our planning processes. We expect to complete reflections onthis process soon.References[1] “CMAP software,” Cmap. [Online]. Available: https://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/origins.php. [Accessed: 01-May-2023].[2] W. M. Trochim, “Hindsight is 20/20: Reflections on the evolution of concept mapping,” Evaluation and Program Planning, vol. 60, pp. 176–185, 2017.[3] C. A. Bergeron, A. Hargrove, B. Tramontana, J. Steyer, A. Emily, D. Davison, A
results have been published [8]. The execution details and assessment resultsof the Summer Bridge Program were published at an educational conference [9]. Theimplementation of an introductory course and its impact on students' academic success andretention was also published at an educational conference [4]. Also, the structure of the industrymentorship program for undergraduate students was published by an engineering educationjournal [10].ConclusionsFifty scholars have been recruited in three cohorts (cohort I, 18 students, cohort II, 13 students,and cohort III, 19 students). Diversity on campus is reflected in all cohorts of scholars. Twoscholars from cohort I and three from cohort III left the program because of personal issues. Allcohort I
constructed andgiven the multiple positionalities of our team, both sets of experiences would influence the co-construction of the students’ experiences [13]. By extension, our collective experience withinthe college of engineering and the SSTEM program would shape our interpretations of the data[13]. Furthermore, the constructivist approach to grounded theory aligns with a relativistontology and subjective epistemology which require the researchers to ensure transparency inthe analytic process through reflective engagement [14]. The constructivist method of GTrepresents a call to action and can involve approaches such as using the analysis as a foundationfor making specific changes in the lives and experiences of the program participants [15
professional path; and irritations withinjustice and power dynamic issues in academia.Publications:Shanachilubwa, K., Sallai, G., & Berdanier, C.G.P. (2023). Investigating the tension betweenpersistence and well-being in engineering doctoral programs. Journal of Engineering Education.Shanachilubwa, K., Ellery, M., Sallai, G., & Berdanier, C.G.P. (2021). “I wish I would haveknown…”: Characterizing engineering students’ reflections on their graduate experiences. 128thASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (held virtually).Phase 1B: Capturing Engineering Graduate Students and Attrition Considerations UsingSMS Text Survey MethodsIn this stage of research, the research team recruited two cohorts of participants representing anational sample
identify physical- Phrases related to the relevance of ‘seeing’ environmental similarities between the site how structures were damaged; direct visited and the site assigned for their project. reference to how damages to the structure helped them visualize and ponder their project; statements that reflect possible applications of their observations to the design of the school module. Students will describe flaws in design and Reference to details of damage in buildings, construction observed in a building damaged for
involved 9 - Student makes an estimation for the answer Student determines whether typical formulas, etc can be used or ifDetermine a Standard Problem adjustments need to be made 1 - Student statement reflects conclusions made through logic or mentions relationship between factors (identification of key relations) 2 - Student identifies equations/formulas needed to solved problemKey Relations (identification of key equations
toengage at the individual, institutional, and network levels. Adjustments from deadline-drivenactivities to competency-driven deliverables reflected the need to meet HSIs where they are, justas faculty and staff are asked to meet their students where they are.Finally, work-based andundergraduate research-based experiences repositories complemented with culturally-responsiveinstruction are being made easily accessible.BackgroundThe ALRISE Alliance is NSF’s Eddie Bernice Johnson INCLUDES Alliance that was awardedin August 2021 with the vision of developing a Networked Improvement Community (NIC)comprised primarily of two-year Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) and emerging HSIsrepresented by their educators and community partners who collaborate
guidelines onwhat should take place at a hackathon or how to host one because every hackathon is unique.Hackathons are often tailored for achieving specific goals. These goals range from focusing on aspecific computing disciplines to promoting the inclusion of certain groups within technology.Traditional hackathons have, however, frequently come under discussion for lacking inclusivityand diversity. Technology is a crucial component of contemporary society, and those whodevelop it should consider the varied viewpoints and experiences of the consumers they serve.Inclusive hackathons are a crucial step in developing a more diverse and equitable IT sector.These events assist in ensuring that the goods and services we use daily reflect the needs
this first cohort,and we met that goal. Ten proposals, representing 11 different institutions, were received, vettedfollowing NSF practices (e.g., teams responded to clarifying questions to ensure alignment withthe Hub goals), and selected. We met our overarching objectives of having a set of grantrecipients that reflect the S-STEM program diversity. Recipients include small privateinstitutions, large research institutions, minority-serving institutions, community colleges, andregionally focused institutions that represent a wide geographic footprint. Campus-specificprojects being advanced by this budding community of practice focus on how to recruit low-income students from different institutional contexts, topics with a community college
curriculum (four days). Figure 3 shows changes in these measurespre- and post- implementation. Figure 3. Pilot data collected on day 1 and day 4 of a soft robotics implementation (n=10 students).Reflections on Pilot Study, ChangesImplementation Student participants were focused and engaged in the activities. We received feedbackon the survey in a prompt asking, “Is there anything else you’d like to tell us?”. One student commented,“I really enjoyed all of the activities from the week. They were very engaging and informative.” Anotherstudent noted the desire for similar activities at their school, saying, “I really enjoyed the class, wereally need something like this at [school name].” In addition to students generally being interested inthe
Thinking into a Neural Engineering High School CurriculumAbstractEngineering design and computational thinking are critical to contemporary STEM research.This is reflected in the Next Generation Science Standards, which call for broadly exposingK-12 students to engineering design and computational thinking as core practices. Thedevelopment and investigation of pathways to successfully integrate these practices in all sciencedisciplines are presently limited. Here, we propose a framework for efficiently connectingcomputational thinking practices with engineering design, and describe a four weekNGSS-congruent module that strategically weaves opportunities for high school life sciencestudents to apply engineering design and
use all the tools acquired in their undergraduateprograms. Simultaneously, students can contribute to one of the goals of society through researchand development of emergency housing in Puerto Rico [4] The paper presents the instructionaldesign, results, and evaluation of the Design-Build course, and finally reflects about lessons learnedand relevance of this type of interdisciplinary learning scenario.2. Methods and Results. 2.1. Method / Semester Project.The design project consisted of conceptualizing a group of emergency houses. Four smallliving units with the same floor plan, interconnected by a central open space where thepersons will be able to interact and develop a sense of community. These small units areexpected to be self
et al., 2008; Christensen and Schunn, 2007;Davis and Sumara 2006; Grinter, 1956; Jonassen, 2000; NAE, 2004; Silk and Schunn, 2008).Proposed ApproachThe central idea in this proposed approach is to have students work on two parallel projects, oneis the technical redesign of simple kitchen appliances (e.g., a toaster), and the other the design oftheir academic path (i.e., courses to take, extracurricular activities, habits, skills, etc.). While thestudents work on these two parallel projects, a periodical intervention will help them connect thetechnical approaches to their academic project. For example, using journals and reflection tounderstand how students had to frame a problem, ask for help, evaluate options, and decide toimprove a toaster