part of who I am” – J (honors)This may reflect the social stratification of educational tracking, with students internalizingavailable stories (narratives) of overachieving related to being smarter for those in moreprestigious pathways [13]. Overall, we have noted that smartness is a function of the context inwhich it is constructed, and the context of each pathway is of importance in understanding howstudents construct their identities. As such, this finding is being further explored acrosspathways, and a conceptual model of smartness identity is in progress to help us further explorethis finding.Future WorkFuture work will consist of the full analysis of the second and third rounds of interviews alongwith a more in-depth exploration of
semester.Background on Problem Being AddressedIn the first-year engineering program at Vanderbilt University, students take a three-credit coursein the fall of the first year called Introduction to Engineering. The Introduction to Engineeringcourse is broken into three modules, each consisting of 14 sections. Because the program aspiresto preview what students can expect to learn in each major and the possible career paths thatcould follow, students are encouraged to explore modules that align with their interests or thatfall outside of their previous experiences.While the design of each course section reflects the expertise and interests of the individualinstructor who leads it, most sections include problem-based learning opportunities and someform of
as to thecontent of their coursework and neither of these goals are easily met in large-format courses thatserve all majors [6].Students desire a community of peers and faculty as well as a sense of belonging [7] within theirmajor. Belonging can be developed in many ways, but a core piece of belonging is knowing whatyou belong to. When students understand what they are studying, they can connect their input(academic effort) to an output (degree attainment, career) that reflects their values and self-identity now and, in the future, [8]. A large contributing factor to programs not being able to helpstudents make connections is a lack of major-specific courses available where students can findand spend structured time with peers/faculty in
selected demographic groups. Females (24.8) reported ahigher level of negative impacts from COVID-19 than Males (26.2). We found no notabledifference in COVID-19 impact between Black or African American students and non-Black orAfrican American students. The data do reflect some noticeable difference in COVID-19 impactand employment status with students who are employed full-time reporting fewer negativeimpacts (29.8), students who are employed part time and students who are unemployed.Students across all income categories report at least some negative impacts from COVID-19 withscores on the index ranging from a low of 24.8 for students with annual household incomes of$20,000-$39,999 to 26.4 for students with annual household incomes of less than
-year seminars or programs that teach study, note-taking, or organizational skills, academic development programs, and services offered by officesof disability services (e.g., academic coaching). Besides generally supporting college persistence[27], academic support programs that help students develop time management and study skillsmay also benefit the academic success of students with ADHD. In a qualitative study, collegestudents with ADHD shared positive reflections on the disability services office and itsrelationship to their academic success [36]. Out-of-Class We include belongingness in out-of-class experiences to capture both students’belongingness within the larger campus community and within their SEM field of
othersin their cohort to do so. By the end of the Fall, each student was connected to a club ororganization that reflected their major, their background, or a passion area. Despite the concernsand restrictions associated with COVID-19, students were very engaged with one another and thecampus community, which ties into their feeling of belonging and inclusion on campus andwithin their cohort.Belonging and Inclusion As a group, students’ feelings of inclusion (M= 4.75, SD=1.05) are more modest thantheir self-efficacy (M= 5.72, SD=0.93 and M=6.06, SD=0.99), and with greater range amongscholars (Table 2). This is consistent with what we would expect within a predominately whiteinstitution (PWI), even with highly accomplished URM scholars whose
will train the CSteachers on being coaches to the content teachers, and we will work with their principals to allowthem to act more like coaches rather than CS content teachers. The coaches will also be anintegral part of the research team. They have better access to the teacher’s classrooms and will beable to observe the teachers teaching their CS curriculum units. They are expected to provide athird-party reflection on the outcome of the curriculum units. They are also expected to activelysupport the teachers in the development of the curriculum planning during a summer PD andthroughout the semester. The teachers are expected to attend a 5-day summer PD like the pilotPD. However, the PD will have more explicit expectations. They will be paid
. Basedon this experience, possible reactions and tips on how to direct the discussion are included in thepaper. The purpose is to present a detailed resource to educators for presentation and activediscussion, which provides for possible actions to be undertaken within the presenter's companyand towards the other participants in the meeting.INTRODUCTIONEthics, social responsibility, and trust are critical issues for all professions in the builtenvironment. The importance of this subject is reflected in numerous professional codes of ethicsand professional conduct statements such as the American Institute of Architect's Code of Ethicsand Professional Conduct [1], the National Society of Professional Engineers' Code of Ethics forEngineers [2], and
% 90.3% RateMinor course changes were made for the Fall 2019 - Spring 2020 academic year. The collegeadopted the 4D Design Innovation Method [6], so the instructor changed the language of theproject to reflect that terminology and process (discover, define, develop, deliver). TheEnvironmental Design Challenge remained largely unchanged in terms of expectations andculminating activities. The Design Challenge increased to 25% of the overall grade and quizzesand exams fell to 55%. See Table 1 for summary of course elements and changes over time.As with most universities, the pandemic closures of Spring 2020 required modifications to thecourse. Following a campus-wide closure in March, the course remained the same as originallyplanned, but some
alsoincludes a push-button to manually open and close the mandibles. The transmitter includes fourother momentary push-button switches that are used for various functions: • Yellow - alternating among operational modes (auto, manual walk, and manual head), and acknowledging messages the robot sends to the LCD • Green – sends a command to the robot to perform a dance • Blue – sends a command to the robot to go into pre-attack mode by crouching down and opening mandibles as a warning to the intruder of a potential attack • Red – sends a command to the robot to go into full attack mode by leaping forward towards the intruder to bite (body changes red to reflect
\* ARABIC 5- Exterior view with facades modifications. Figure 3- Cross bracing option. From [8]‘ Figure 4- Interior view of retrofitted building. From [8] Figure 5- Exterior view with facades modifications. From [8].The final activity consisted of preparing a final report and presenting the case study for thescrutiny of other students and mentors. The students answered questions, reflected on the lessonslearned including how this course contributed to their academic preparation. Figure 6- “Map” search screen of the case study repository.Current state of development of the case study cloud-based repositoryThe cloud-based case study repository has been
internal consistency was determined for eachquestionnaire (Cronbach's alpha = 0.77–0.85) and reflected good validity; therefore, nofurther changes were made before the questionnaires' broader distribution.2.3 Statistical analysis After collecting data from the returned responses, the Statistical Package for theSocial Sciences (SPSS) (version 23) was used for analysis. The results are presented aspercentages, means, standard deviations, and frequencies.2.4 Results The following sections show the study results of the courses' importance as evaluatedfrom the academic and non-academic perspective. Participants in the questionnaires ratedwater courses in terms of importance on a 5-point Likert scale (5 is important, 1 is
student leaders through the process we hope willhelp prepare them for future challenges when they are in leadership positions on larger scales.References[1] Coyle, Edward J., Jamieson, Leah H., Oakes, William C, “EPICS: Engineering Projects in CommunityService”, International Journal of Engineering Education Vol. 21, No. 1, Feb. 2005, pp. 139-150.[2] Zoltowski, C. B., and Oakes, W.C., “Learning by Doing: Reflections of the EPICS Program”, Special Issue:University Engineering Programs That Impact Communities: Critical Analyses and Reflection, InternationalJournal for Service-Learning in Engineering, 2014, pp. 1-32.[3] Oakes, William, Andrew Pierce, Nusaybah Abu-Mulaweh, “Engagement in Practice: ScalingCommunity-based Design Experiences
believe that situating the explorationof engineering ethical challenges and reasoning in a game-based context is a novel way ofinfluencing how students perceive and react to ethical dilemmas. Giving students the opportunityduring their education to recognize the wider social and ethical impacts of the profession - throughmultimedia simulation, role-playing games, case-based learning, and review of other, fictionalizedcases - can give them opportunities to reflect on the need to identify complex situations in futuresettings, as well as a safe environment in which to explore, make mistakes, and discuss theramifications of various decisions in authentic contexts. Ultimately the goal is to better prepareyoung engineers to tackle current and future
. 1Literature reviewIn recent years, academic libraries have reported a major shift in focus towardsscholarly communications and research management services [1]. Craft and Harlow [2]observed increased requests from graduate students for scholarly communicationstraining in a variety of topics, with the top choices being “publishing tips” and“post-dissertation publishing” [3]. This demand for training reflects the need amongstudents for guidance in navigating the publication process. Many doctoral programs,especially in the sciences and engineering, require students to publish in order tograduate. As relative novices in the complicated, often opaque arena of academicpublishing, many of these students struggle with the task and would benefit fromguidance
indicatedthat the proposed observational instrument resulted in seven distinctive main domains. Thesedomains included (1) unit-specific content knowledge, (2) engineering design process (EDP), (3)productive failure and success, (4) interdisciplinary applications, (5) questioning, (6) teamwork,and finally (7) discussion, feedback, and reflection. This study has both theoretical and practicalimplications. Theoretically, the study will contribute to the engineering education literature byextending the concept of PCK (Shulman, 1986) to the engineering education field and itstheoretical viability in the elementary school setting. Practically, it is paramount thatadministrators, professional developers, curriculum specialists, and teachers come to
. 2. Provide documentation of their design decisions in the form of written reflection, sketches, and evidence from data. 3. Build a prototype as part of their solution (a simulation, drawing or a physical object) 4. Present their solution to others.The Committee then recruited a broad range of experts including those in education, engineering,health care, and counseling services to help define the parameters of the challenge and the formatby which it was delivered. The problem needed to be narrow enough for students to grasp andaddress in a short period of time but broad enough to foster creativity. The resulting challengefocused on physical locations and the nature of human interactions in those
survey of engineering deans4 This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (grant 1539140; PI: StephanieFarrell; Co-PIs: Rocio Chavela Guerra, Erin Cech, Tom Waidzunas, and Adrienne Minerick). Any opinions,findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.and program directors in fall 2015 produced a list of eight deans willing to allow the survey to beadministered in their programs (see [25] for details). To protect confidentiality, I do not providethe names of the schools included in the study. Given that an institution’s participation in thestudy was determined by deans who were supportive of
the challenging time of the pandemic and/or the program being held entirelyvirtually, or whether we would have experienced the same faltering engagement if this programwere running in a typical in-person, non-pandemic academic setting.An additional challenge we are facing is a lack of diversity in our mentorship pool, across gender(just two of the mentors in the ISMP TEAM group are women) and engineering discipline, as wellas an underrepresentation of black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) program participants.This lack of diversity is similarly reflected in the SMSE advisory board and alumni pools fromwhich the program mentors were selected, and is a critical challenge that the SMSE is working toaddress. That said, the students
and results.One way in which to help streamline hands-on laboratory education in terms of objectives,equipment, and products is to make the lab activities as relevant as possible to their interests,goals and future careers. This involves giving the students ownership of their lab experience.The concept of student ownership has many facets, including letting students plan educationalobjectives and activities, select educational materials, teach other students, and reflect criticallyon their expectations and experiences (Fletcher 2008). One of the objectives of the civil and environmental curriculum at The University ofIowa is to produce graduates who have a strong foundation of scientific and technical knowledgeand are equipped with
for encouraging their children to studyscience and math in school and consider possible careers in these fields. These twoprograms have been particularly successful at reaching out to families traditionallyunderserved in science and math, including families from inner urban, rural, andminority communities. Both programs offer publications and program delivery in bothEnglish and Spanish to assist in reaching diverse audiences.In its report Changing the Conversation7, the National Academy of Engineering concludedthe public image of engineering needed to reflect the optimism and aspirations of studentsand needed to be inclusive. Some of the misconceptions included 1) engineering work is asedentary desk job, 2) engineering is strongly linked to
testing were discussed inthe class. Topics covered several products drawn from different industries including surgicaltools, surgical simulators, chair controls, display monitors, using virtual reality in usabilitytesting, and more.The weekly paper (self-reflection) was a weekly assignment in which students discussed themain key takeaways from the lecture and the in-class research review discussions. They alsolisted the main concepts that they will include in their usability portfolio.Usability Portfolio was the last assignment that students completed by the end of the semester.Students were asked to build an e-portfolio to use as a resource when conducting future usabilitystudies. In completing this assignment, students used information from
equity and inclusion, we invited the vice provost of diversity and inclusion to conducta workshop with the students on microaggressions in summer zero. Additionally, within the firstyear project course, we held conversations of saviorism and had regular reflection assignmentsfor them to integrate how topics of equity are important within their work as engineers and howthey can regularly engage and reflect on equity within their work.As faculty members, we take regular professional development opportunities to create a moreinclusive space. Currently, the first author is exploring ways to integrate an anti-racist gradingapproach in the first year project course, with a faculty learning community on campus. Theantiracist grading process, originally
, this was not feasible. Feedback surveys reflected the desire tomeet in person with hands-on learning using labs and interactives. This will be integrated intofuture courses. Figure 7: Feedback Survey Results on the course success Figure 8: Feedback Survey Results - Answer choices from "As the results of this course " As a result of this course, students reflected that they have had a better understanding ofphysics in real life, followed by consideration of a career in STEM. They also expressed increasedinterest in taking higher-level Physics and Math courses as well as learning more about theUniversity of Cincinnati. We received two write in responses which consisted of “I’m a nerd now”and “Learning more about
, whichincludes 6,521 undergraduate and graduate students. Within the demographics,international students are identified as Non-Resident Aliens according to the Cal PolyPomona Institutional Research, Planning, and Analytics office. Twenty point eightpercent of students are female, 79.154% are male and 0.046% identify as nonbinary. 11The pie chart (figure 3) above reflects engineering undergraduate and graduatestudents and their first-generation status. The pie chart reflects students that identifyas first in their family to attend college in pursuit of a degree, no response and notfirst-generation status
still create a sense of belonging, a synchronous engineeringgraphics course was taught in a split format, with 50% students attending classes in the physicalclassroom monitored by two TAs, and the other 50% students attending classes remotely. Allstudents met the instructor via Zoom meetings twice a week remotely. All course materials wereposted online by implementing an ILEARN framework on Canvas in a flipped classroom setting.Students learned online Interactive Lessons for background knowledge including videos, audios,PowerPoint, and quizzes, then Emulated one or two problems by following recorded videos.During the synchronous Zoom meeting, students completed class Activities to demonstrate ahigher-level understanding. A weekly Reflection
1 Percentage of students repeating lower-division Math and Physics CoursesFor students who pass their lower-division courses and continue pursuing a STEM field, thisdoes not often translate into success in math-intensive engineering courses. Figure 2 shows thepercent repetition rate for various lower and upper-division ECS courses. Many courses acrossECS consist of repetition rates above 20%. This alludes to students not retaining the materiallearned in their previous pre-requisite courses, and consequently, students continue to repeatcourses and extend their graduation date as reflected in the graduation trends in 4, 5, 6-yeargraduation rates, shown in Figure 3. Although the 4-year graduation rate has consistently stayedat 5% since 2009
, and students are given specifications to which they must adhere while devising asolution. This method requires students to apply theoretical knowledge obtained throughcoursework and lectures to solve a given problem as specified by the instructor. In some cases,the instructor may provide a model design solution that the students can reference as they devisetheir own answer to the provided prompt [5]. Professors act as facilitators of this process,guiding students to resources where appropriate and providing students with the tools necessaryto shape their design approach.This model progresses through three main stages: the development of a prototype, testing andredesign, and then reflection on the task, culminating in the creation of a report
of the 25-item Science Teaching EfficacyBelief Instrument (STEBI) developed by Riggs and Enochs (1990). The instrument was originallydesigned to assess the levels of teachers’ self-confidence in teaching science topics, as well astheir general beliefs about whether teachers have an influence on student learning outcomes. Theinstrument consists of two scales, the Personal Science Teaching Efficacy Belief scale, WySLICEYear 1 PD Preliminary Survey, and the Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy scale and uses a5-point Likert scale with response categories: ”strongly agree,” ”agree,” ”uncertain,” ”disagree,”and ”strongly disagree.” For WySLICE, the questions were modified to reflect efficacy belief andoutcome expectancy for teaching computer
attend an in-personcamp. Therefore, we believe it is worth reflecting on the benefits and challenges of thisreformatted summer camp and suggest ways online student experience can be improved in thefuture.In this paper, we specifically focus on the water quality module, which was reformatted for onlinedelivery. The module originally used multiple techniques (i.e., probes and test strips) to test thequality of various water sources, including a creek running through campus. The virtual modulealso tested water quality, but each student chose a water source near them and results werecompiled and compared for different samples across the country. While both versions (in-personand virtual) included an interactive lesson on water quality and treatment