semester, giving them anopportunity to interact with local community leaders. Prior approval of the community serviceplanned is required. Regular interactions of this kind will build the students’ networks, enhancetheir social skills, enhance their appreciation of the value of service to the university andcommunity, and reflect positively on the university and the FSSP. The FSSP includes proactiveand just-in-time mentoring of three types: peer mentoring provided by the University ofCincinnati’s McNair RECON Peer Mentor Program, mentoring from an assigned S-STEMproject faculty member, and research mentoring provided by the University of Cincinnati’sOffice of Undergraduate Research, Scholarly Endeavors and Creative Practice (URSC). Thesethree
over users, where the averagepercent wrong was only 32%, with a median percent wrong of 21%, indicating a skeweddistribution. Examination revealed that students having more difficulty (and getting more wronganswers) played the game much longer than those doing well. Moreover, the average percentagecorrect tended to stagnate or even decrease as students moved from the easier levels into harderlevels, which does not reflect the improvement we would like to see as they gain experience (seeFig. 5). If the students were truly mastering the ideas, we would hope to see a reduction inwrong answers as students gain experience and go the higher levels, or at least fewer overall.(The laboratory trial did show very substantial learning gains from doing
knowledge gains, interest in the degreeprogram, and ability to function as a professional engineer. The mobile boards have also beenutilized in other disciplines such as mechanical engineering using two experiments developedand tested in a class. [5-12].Connor et. al. observed that to successfully adopt and incorporate innovative educational devicesinto curricula within and across multiple institutions, understanding the potential advantages isessential, but understanding the barriers that can occur is just as important to ensure theeffectiveness of implementation. For the Mobile Studio project, they identified barriers as: (i)reflected experience of both students and instructor, (ii) the use and the development ofsupporting resources to the device
during the class session. For instance, these items focus on the subject matter being taught, and the ways in which the instructor includes key concepts. Procedural knowledge (content): These items measure how students engage with course materials. Specifically, these items are focused on assessing the ways that students talk about or characterize the phenomena being taught in the class and whether they are reflective about their learning in the course. Communicative interactions (culture): The communicative interactions section focuses on the types of interactions that occur in the classroom. These items examine if classroom culture is inclusive and what types of
reflect the size of the machine and thesensitivity to particular issues (e.g. large radius circles are better at highlighting machinegeometry errors, smaller circles are more sensitive to servo mismatch or lag). Figures 1, 2 and 3are exemplifying the procedures and techniques. Page 23.432.6 (a) (b) (c) (d)Figure 3 (a) Ballbar fixture adapter for EMCO CNC turning center (b) Ballbar measurement output withdifferent Quality standards. (c) Ballbar measurement output error values. (d) Ballbar error
, participants were given anassignment to identify a lesson taught in their classroom which could use the cloud as aneducational technology tool and then to write a revised lesson plan based on cloud computingintegration and standards-based lesson planning. The assignment also required participants tosubmit the revised and original lesson plans plus samples of student work. The submitted lessonplans reflected the diversity of subjects taught by the participants and shared with their peers.The completed assignments were presented at the second workshop session, which consisted of a1-day meeting in December 2012.Based on the teachers’ applications for the program, we were able to outline what the teachershoped to learn from the workshops. A pre-workshop
classroom, includinginstances of micro assaults, microinsults, and microinvalidation; and a facilitated metacognitivereflection on mentorship during which faculty shared reflections on their mentoring experiences,discussed common challenges, and lessons learned, which was repeated each semester [7], [8].Faculty mentors also supported one another with monthly 30-minute check-in meetings overZoom.Peer MentorshipThe ESP established peer mentoring during the second year of the program as a result of year onefindings that scholars desired to build community with their peers in addition to faculty mentors[7]. Peer mentors were comprised of preceding cohort members that were assigned duringorientation to the succeeding cohort members. Peer mentors and
) centered,' representing a comprehensive understanding of broadcontexts that considers social, cultural, political, economic, and environmental factors ofengineering work as well as intentional reflection on how an engineer’s identities and culturalcontexts shape their approaches to their work. The organization partners with instructors andother community stakeholders to develop a wide variety of socially engaged content that isdesigned to be adaptable to diverse contexts and instructional needs. C-SED’s content andeducational strategies are grounded in engineering education and design research and our teamregularly seeks feedback and collected data from instructor partners and students to inform ourefforts to refine and develop new educational
, findings from student surveyshighlight the positive impact of various enrichment activities on academic success and the senseof community within the cohort. Specifically, supplemental instruction sessions, additionalFriday class meetings, weekly lunches, and cohorting were frequently cited by students asparticularly beneficial. However, it is important to acknowledge that many direct and indirectoutcomes can only be partially assessed at this intermediate stage. Nonetheless, current resultssuggest that the program is meeting or progressing towards its objectives. Notably, onemeasurable outcome is the improvement in academic performance. The program's enrichmentactivities have received positive feedback from students, reflected in measurable
could invest more time into their education, as mentioned by one male White electricalengineering: "I hope that I would be selected for this program in order to receive a financialsupport to decrease my work hours and put more time on my major.” Another white Male civilengineering student adds a personal perspective, stating, "I could have achieved more if I didn’tneed to spend time compensating for my cost of living and education. This program can possiblyassist me in erasing those worries." Some students reflect on their experience with other NSF-related or scholarship based programs at community colleges and how they were able to benefitfrom these programs. For example, one male Asian mechanical engineering student explainedthat, “I attended
, each with unique strengths and local challenges. Weuse a collective impact model, allowing each campus to contribute to the development,deployment, and continuous improvement of the curriculum. Our team is composed of computerscience educators and social scientists with expertise in evaluating inclusive STEM education andtraining faculty at Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs). Our evaluation plan examines bothstudent and faculty outcomes, enabling us to reflect and refine our approach. Shared leadershipand site teams are integral to sustaining the work, even amid potential academic personnelchanges.Our research is impactful in the learning sciences for several reasons. It utilizes faculty learningcommunities as a vehicle to bring change to
the end of both theFall 2011 and Spring 2012 semesters, for a total of two extensive interviews per participant.Cohort 2 participants have been similarly engaged in both check-in and extensive interviews.Cohort 2 participants engage in check-in interviews approximately once every two weeks tofacilitate their participation around their work schedules. They have also participated in twoextensive interviews, one in Winter 2011 and the other in early Summer 2012. More than 400check-in interviews and 75 extensive interviews have been conducted.Check-in Interviews The weekly or bi-weekly check-in interviews begin with very open-ended questionsintended to allow the participants to freely reflect on the previous one or two weeks and to
versus constructive) to determine how these typesof teaching impact student responses. Finally, we plan to determine what differences can befound between different types of institutions (such as community colleges, MSIs, PWIs, Doctoralgranting institutions) or class types (engineering, science, math).AcknowledgementsThis research is supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (grant numbers DUE-1821092, DUE-1821036, DUE-1821488, and DUE-1821277). Any opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] L. Deslauriers, L. S. McCarty, K. Miller, K. Callaghan, and G. Kestin, "Measuring actual
data or thereliance on information that reflects historical inequalities, can result in flawed AI models. Whenthese models are utilized to make inferences about people, such as facial recognition, predictivepolicing, and credit score assignment, they would lead to decisions which can have negativeimpacts on communities of color even without the programmer’s intention to discriminate [1]–[3]. This has led to the ban on the use of such technologies in a few US cities. To empoweryoung people to thrive in civic life in the era of AI, education must prepare them to understandthe benefits and recognize potential harms of AI so that they can make informed decisions.However, this is not easy. Ethics is complex and requires critical thinking of
Grant DRL- 2010259. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions, or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe NSF.References[1] P. Abichandani, V. Sivakumar, D. Lobo, C. Iaboni, and P. Shekhar, “Internet-of-things curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment for stem education: A review of literature,” IEEE Access, 2022.[2] “Nodemcu: An open source firmware based on esp8266 wifi-soc.” https://www.nodemcu.com/index en.html (accessed Feb. 09, 2023).[3] D. Seehorn et al., CSTA K--12 Computer Science Standards: Revised 2011. ACM, 2011.[4] M. K. John, “Development and use of the arcs model of instructional design,” Journal of instructional development, vol
hands-on projects or activities. In its finalform, the bridge program combines the positive attributes of its former iterations andsuccessfully balances preparing students for college socially and academically. Through hands-on maker projects, tours of campus and department labs, math reviews, and opportunities toconnect socially, the updated bridge program seeks to better support the S-STEM scholars duringtheir transition to college.Acknowledgement – This material is based upon work supported by the National ScienceFoundation S-STEM program under Grant No. 1834139. Any opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science
thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF. We appreciateall faculty and student focus group and interview participants who helped us understand theirexperiences managing and engaging in IRES programs around the world.References[1] K. Davis, Y. Jalali, V. Lohani, D. Knight, and R. Müller, “Student learning in international research programs: A comparison across cultural contexts,” presented at the ASEE Annual Conference proceedings, 2018.[2] K. A. Davis and D. B. Knight, “Becoming a researcher: A narrative analysis of US students’ experiences in Australia,” presented at the Proceedings of the 8th Research in Engineering Education Symposium, 2019.[3] L. M. Hatfield, C. T. Amelink, N. P. Sanderlin
project was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Award Number DUE-2042363 to all the authors of this work.6. References[1] J. C. Taylor and D. F. Felten, Performance by design: Sociotechnical systems in North America. Prentice Hall, 1993.[2] A. Majchrzak and K. J. Klein, “Things are always more complicated than you think: An open systems approach to the organizational effects of computer-automated technology,” J. Bus. Psychol., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 27–49, 1987.[3] E. Trist, “The evolution of socio-technical systems,” Occas. Pap., vol. 2, no. 1981, p. 1981, 1981.[4] W. Pasmore, C. Francis, J. Haldeman, and A. Shani, “Sociotechnical systems: A North American reflection on empirical studies of the
. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.References[1] L. L. Espinosa, J. M. Turk, M. Taylor, and H. M. Chessman, “Race and Ethnicity in HigherEducation: A Status Report,” Washington, DC, 2019.[2] D. Shapiro et al., “Tracking Transfer: Measures of Effectiveness in Helping CommunityCollege Students to Complete Bachelor’s Degrees, Report No. 13,” Herndon, VA, 2017.[3] K. H. Strickland, “Transfer Students: The True American Ninja Warriors,” About Campus,vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 27–30, 2018.[4] V. Tinto, “Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research,”Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 45, no. 1
project. This responsibility of teaching empowered thestudents within their research environment, synthesized their learning and helped them direct the learningof others. Taking responsibility for the learning of others can lead to deeper overall understanding 4 whichwe noticed in the students especially within the last few weeks of the program.In the development of students as scholars, the weekly meetings and interactions allowed for depth oflearning and ensured the development of communication skills in an environment conducive to scientificdiscussion and reflection. Research discussion meetings between students and teachers were monitored bythe faculty mentors to enrich discussion and teaching. It was evident that the research discussions
first- time-in-college students’ perceptions of student supports. • Identifying what elements of our program could be possible without a large grant as well as which elements were still challenging even with the presence of a large grant.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation EngineeringEducation and Centers under Grant Number DUE-1644138. Any opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] J. Wyner, K. Deane, D. Jenkins, and J. Fink, “The Transfer Playbook: Essential Practices for Two-and Four-Year Colleges.,” Aspen Inst
and within-setting conceptualization to one that takes into account the movement ofyouth among settings and connections between settings.References[1] G. J. Duncan and R. J. Murnane, Eds., Whither opportunity?: Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances. Russell Sage Foundation, 2011.[2] M. Ito et al., “The Connected Learning Research Network: Reflections on a Decade of Engaged Scholarship.,” Connected Learning Alliance, Irvine, CA, USA, 2020.[3] A. V. Maltese and R. H. Tai, “Eyeballs in the Fridge: Sources of early interest in science,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 669–685, Mar. 2010, doi: 10.1080/09500690902792385.[4] K. P. Dabney et al., “Out-of-school time science activities
relying on western approaches of using Likert surveyswith large sample sizes to produce generalizable data sets.AcknowledgmentThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Research in theFormation of Engineers program under Grant Number 1916673. Any opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. 6ReferencesCapobianco, B. M., DeLisi, J., & Radloff, J. (2018). Characterizing elementary teachers’ enactment of high‐leverage practices through engineering design‐based science
more educators aboutour curriculum in an attempt to achieve wider adoption of CS Frontiers.AcknowledgmentsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants1949472, 1949492, and 1949488. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of theNational Science Foundation.References[1] B. Broll, Á. Lédeczi, G. Stein, D. Jean, C. Brady, S. Grover, V. Cateté and T. Barnes, "Removing the Walls Around Visual Educational Programming Environments," in Proceeding of the 2021 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), St. Louis, Missouri, 2021.[2] L. Alvarez, I. Gransbury
and its development process, and will share the badgedevelopment process and badge modules with educators and others with an interest in helpingtechnicians develop cyber awareness. The project team is also considering ways to share thebadge development process with some or all of the eight federal agencies that lead skilledtechnical workforce development programs [8]. This work is part of a project funded by the Advanced Technological Education Program of the National Science Foundation DUE #2000867. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References Cited:[1
, assuming there was no deformation at the boundary. After analyzing the data, theYoung’s modulus of the metal samples could be determined; typically, this was accurate towithin about 25-50%. We found that the clamping force, which was provided by a small thumbscrew, was inadequate to assume a perfectly rigid clamped boundary condition and that theactual deformation was somewhere between the limiting cases of simply supported and perfectlyclamped. Following the lab, students were asked to reflect on their experience and to answersome qualitative questions about the system. Students reported excitement at the extremeprecision of the optical technique, but also some frustration that they were not able to reproducethe Young’s modulus exactly
assess whether the factors of chemicalengineering self-efficacy, coping self-efficacy, and student integration have a significant impacton the achievement and persistence of chemical engineering sophomore students.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.2025035 through the Professional Formation of Engineers: Research Initiation in EngineeringFormation (PFE:RIEF) program. 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.References[1] Culberson, O.L. “Attrition of ChE Undergrads,” Chemical Engineering Education, 4(1), 24- 27 (1970)[2
practicerelated to improving the diversity of students participating in the more technically-oriented rolesand career paths within engineering and will provide insight into institutional changes to enhancegender equality in engineering education curricula in order to better prepare women to entertechnical roles in the workforce. Taken together, results from our project reveal importantinsights about the track/specialization decision factors and career path plans of engineeringstudents.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1848498. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of
concepts. While the review work is in progress, we share the EDT modelin this paper in the hope that it could benefit the community and anyone who wants to use it intheir own research on design thinking and design cognition.AcknowledgmentThe authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the U.S. NationalScience Foundation (NSF) via grant # 2207408. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressedin this publication or presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the viewof the NSF.References[1] J. Mountstephens, and J. Teo, “Progress and challenges in generative product design: a review of systems,” Computers, 9(4), 80, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers9040080[2] M
contribute to a culture of engineering thatdemonstrates compassion, both interpersonally in the practice of engineers and intrapersonallysuch that we collectively value our holistic identities.AcknowledgementsThis work was supported through funding by the National Science Foundation (NSF CAREER#2045392). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation. Additionally, the authors gratefully acknowledge the anonymous reviewersfor their constructive feedback, which helped us to sharpen the paper.References [1] J. L. Huff, B. Okai, K. Shanachilubwa, N. W. Sochacka, and J. Walther, “Unpacking professional shame