leader.” – Asian American EngineerA few participants indicated that they had worked as interns or during college for certaincompanies. They reflected on the importance of the support that they had received from theircoworkers, as well as the value of having that work experience when it came time to look for a jobafter graduation. “As I was going to school, I was also working full-time at the CAD designers. I worked in the industry another four years prior to working as an engineer. My coworkers were willing to help me with homework. My employer was very acceptable and very supportive of me going to school, so they allowed me to work out hours to make up those hours.” – Asian American Engineer “I started off
families are invited to one of SfT’s partner institutions, including theMuseum of Science and Industry, The Field Museum of Natural History and the PeggyNotebaert Nature Museum.The question the SfT initiative explores is if there are changes in participants’ and out-of-school time organization leadership’s attitude towards STEAM, as well as a gain in contentknowledge. To study this question, participants are given a survey gaging their attitudes andknowledge about STEAM before and after each module. Additionally, all instructors arerequired to complete Activity Journal Logs after each of their class sessions. These journalsallow instructors to reflect on their classes and help to identify where they needed moresupport from the SfT initiative
incorporate all four of the phases in the cycle: Concrete Experience,Abstract Hypothesis & Conceptualization and Active Experimentation. However, if the capstoneexperience is one of the first times that formal design process is introduced to the students, theopportunity for Reflective Observation becomes more difficult as the students are literallythrown into a high intensity design process where failure to develop a good product or systemcould lead to failure to obtain their engineering degree [17, 11, 18]. Concrete Experience (dissection, reverse engineering
experiments and assignments. This sample and the teamingenvironment reflected several similarities to the first-year engineering programs for which thisinstrument was intended. An email introducing and containing a link to the online survey wassent to all students during the final days of the course. Response rates were extremely low (≈7%) due to the timing of the survey and lack of in-class announcements. However, the fewresults that were obtained demonstrated that students would identify others outside of their teamsand even their sections, through use of the free-response questions.The final version of the survey consisted of a cover letter describing the purpose of the researchand data collection, a prompt asking the students to indicate all
began as a week-long residentialexperience, with counselors and mentors leading more of the workshops than faculty. Theworkshops are less technical than those offered at the high school level, but reflect the broadintroduction to multiple engineering disciplines and computer science. The program also advisesparticipants how to prepare for future studies in STEM. Middle school is a critical age for youngwomen where self-confidence and perceptions of others have a big impact on actions anddecisions. A well-known study has shown that young girls have gendered perceptions of STEMeven as middle school students [8]. By reaching the girls at a younger age, the program aims toincrease the STEM pipeline and encourage more young women to explore and
(engineeringmanagement is the most popular). And yet, the number of students enrolled in the CU TeachEngineering concentration does not nearly reflect the scale of interest initially expressed by theundergraduate engineering student body on a 2012 survey: while one-quarter of the almost 1,000respondents indicated an interest in K-12 teaching on the survey, just 14 students are currentlypursuing the CU Teach Engineering concentration. What is keeping those who indicated ahypothetical interest in K-12 teaching from enrolling in it and pursuing secondary STEM teacherlicensure as part of their engineering degrees? This paper seeks to begin probing this complexquestion by taking a historical perspective, integrating data from the initial launch of the programwith
incorporated in the form of educational technology to promote effective pedagogy, whichhas fostered the development of a new conceptual framework termed as the technological-pedagogical-content-knowledge (TPACK).2-4 The concept of TPACK reflects the status oftechnological, pedagogical, and content knowledge of educators.3 Moreover, the intersection ofthe three constitutive knowledge domains of TPACK, viz., technology, pedagogy, and content giverise to four additional knowledge domains, viz., technological pedagogical knowledge,pedagogical content knowledge, technological content knowledge, and technological pedagogicalcontent knowledge.4It is believed that the application of TPACK framework can make its three core knowledgedomains complementary to
large universityin the Midwest with more than 3400 graduate students spread among 13 different engineeringprograms. This sample size, though small, is sufficiently large for quality qualitative work in thisinitial exploration.33 This small sample size was also a reflection of the limited population ofreturners. A potential list of students was initially identified through Graduate School records,sorted by the number of years between the BS or MS degree and when the students started theirPh.D. With those criteria, only 29 domestic engineering students at the University met ourdesired conditions. We emailed these students to invite them to participate in the study andscheduled interview times with those who responded. The demographic data for our
, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate 6.6 By 2020, protect and restore water‐related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes The next section begins by explaining the theory of change underlying the USPCSAW project and guiding its activities. It then introduces the project components and describes their alignment with the Water SDG targets. The subsequent section presents the multi‐level assessment approach and results. The final section discusses the challenges and successes of the USPCASW project with particular reflection on the benefits of having a
conceptualgains on a concept inventory, but made smaller gains on final exam problem solving questions,compared to a traditional classroom.Overall, we see the collaborative quizzes as a well-aligned assessment tool for the active learningclassroom. This approach fostered improved co-regulation skills, and students who started withthe lowest levels of conceptual knowledge had similar course outcomes to those who began withhigher scores.In reflecting on our observations of the course, we also feel the collaborative quizzes were well-received. The majority of students participated fully and were engaged with the materials. It wasnot uncommon to hear students in extended discussions, particularly about the latter questions inthe quizzes, which tended to
theengineering workforce as a social context—making sure you succeed by ensuring you receivethe credit you are due. It is only at this point that the interaction moves from passive supervisingto active mentoring.We can also say something about the nature of Will’s stance toward mentoring in this vignette. Itwould seem that Will was not actively positioning himself in a mentoring role until the needarose. The long pause Will takes between the giving praise and giving advice could suggest it isan afterthought. Furthermore, his cursing about Gary might suggest this advice reflects hisfrustrations with Gary more than a desire to mentor Curtis. The reasons behind this passiveattitude toward Curtis is unclear, but we should point out that Curtis had only
steps to their project. Questions 6 & 7 addressed identification and elimination ofwaste to ensure that students learned the types of waste defined by lean methodology anddemonstrate they could identify areas in which their senior design projects wasted time andresources. The feedback from these responses was grouped by the most common answers,including the 8 categories taught in lecture, as well as wastes that were applicable to studentprojects but did not fall into one of the major categories. Post-survey question 8 allowed studentsto show that they could identify non-value adding activities and value adding activities, andconstruct a value stream map. Question 9 had students reflect on the basic idea that customerdefines value, and is
Engineering Education, 2017 Paper ID #18164Mr. Kai Jun Chew, Stanford University Kai Jun (KJ) Chew is a Research Data Analyst in the Mechanical Engineering department at Stanford University. He is currently working closely with Dr. Sheri Sheppard on two fronts: introducing reflec- tive activities as part of the Consortium to Promote Reflection in Engineering Education (CPREE) and implementing the Continuous Improvement Program as part of the ABET evaluation. Born and raised in Malaysia, KJ received his Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the University of South- ern California (USC) and his Master of Science in the
, the characterization of asbestos ascarcinogenic, and the Challenger explosion—forced professional engineers to reflect on their role insociety and their ethical responsibilities for humans and the environment1. After a decade ofproducing accreditation requirements ABET responded to a confluence of pressures, issuingEngineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000) that broadened the scope of learning outcomes and cededassessment practices to educators and school administrators. Engineering education institutions drewupon expertise from ethics, history of technology, science & technology studies (STS), philosophy,and professional practitioners to develop new curriculums in response to these requirements.Engineering schools also engaged in efforts to
abandoned mines. The launch video and design briefincluded information on the more than 15,000 abandoned mines in New Mexico that threatensafe access to water, how acid mine drainage occurs, a brief history on why mining wasbeneficial to the state, and how mining disasters have had and continue to have myriad negativeconsequences for people and the environment.Students were guided to conduct research on the problem and existing solutions, as well asresearching ways to engage with communities that might be mistrustful of outsiders. We felt thiswould provide them an opportunity to reflect on engineering ethics. They gave 5-minute pitchesof their solutions, following similar guidelines for the previous pitch.Data collection and analysisStudents
differently. When faced with a difficult problem, some children give up or displaypatterns of avoidance believing that they cannot solve the problem. Other children view theproblem as a challenge believing that they can solve it with enough time and effort (Dweck andReppucci, 1973; Dweck, 1986). Later, she studied the effect a child’s beliefs about themselveshad on a child’s goals using the model that a child who viewed their intelligence as a fixedquantity would choose goals that reflected that belief and a child who viewed their intelligenceas a changeable quantity would choose goals in accordance with that belief (Dweck and Leggett,1988). Dweck went on to label these mindsets “fixed” and “growth,” respectively (2008). Inadvocating for mindset
the environment that served toenable students’ perceptions of access ranged from effective signage above equipment andmachinery, to furniture that made the room both functional and comfortable. In addition tostructural features of the environment, aural characteristics such as music served to makespaces more inviting and “laid back,” as well as offered a buffer to the loud backdrop of themachines.More often, the data revealed the ways in which features of the space served as a barrier toaccess, including locked doors, cluttered and crowded rooms, and poor directional signage.Organization of the makerspaces in relation to one another prompted reflections on the impactof having equipment spread throughout multiple rooms and the inconvenience of
Annual ConferenceThe proposed curriculum was developed based on the complex and scientifically well-researchedChesapeake Bay Watershed, in which the college is located and greater than 95 percent ofparticipating students are permanent residents. The course also reflects other common place-based characteristics, including a broad philosophy of understanding critical to earth systemsengineering and a connection to the self and the community-based problem students wererequired to study. Place-based pedagogy also helps to incorporate sustainability concepts into amath-intensive systems engineering course.28 “Pedagogy of place challenges all educators toreflect on the relationship between the kind of education they pursue and the kind of places
, erroneously, referenced only within the arts, yet itsdevelopment and nurturing is critical to the sciences as well. Unfortunately, rigid curricula, anover-emphasis on standardized testing, and increased identification and medication of studentswith ADHD all contribute to a decreases within several dimensions of creativity 1.Creativity and innovation, within a supportive structure, are requisite components for reliablydeveloping solutions to complex problems. This is true at an elementary level, but also as itapplies across the learning continuum and eventually, to the workplace 34. The role of individualcreativity is integral to organizational innovation and the highest levels of innovation occur whenthis relationship is symbiotic 38-41.Reflections
/learningstyles/ilsweb.html.The primary results important for this report is the Visual vs. Verbal categories. Note the muchlarger numbers of students for whom their learning preference is for visual information ratherthan verbal. The full results are given in Table A1, which shows that more students have a‘strong’ (strength of 9 or 11) or ‘moderate’ (strength of 5 or 7) preference for visual information(total of 397 students) rather than ‘strong’ or ‘moderate’ preference for verbal information (totalof 27 students). Table A1: Learning style questionnaire results to date of Introduction to Engineering students.Numbers given are total number of students reporting a strength value in each (paired) category. Strength Active Reflective Sensing
andprocess information (Allinson & Hayes, 1996; Goldstein & Blackman, 1978; Messik, 1984;Riding, 1997). It is reflected in the organization of information in memory, the speed andaccuracy of decision-making under uncertainty, the global or macro approaches to dealing withproblems, and the preference for different problem solving strategies (Messik, 1976, 1984;Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997).Two measures of cognitive design style are used in this project, the first is the problem-solutionindex and the second is design patterns based on the transitions of design issues and designprocesses. These provide quantitative measures of design styles. Cognitive design style ismeasured at the meta-level by dividing the entire design activity into two
the new technologies wasconducted. The results reflected a positive student experience with the course delivery.Description of EE110EE110 provides the beginning engineer withfundamental knowledge and skills associatedwith the electrical or computer engineeringprofessions. Table 1 illustrates the labassignments that the students must completeduring class. It will introduce commonelectronic components, basic circuitconfigurations, and laboratory instruments.Bench practices and lab reports will beintroduced along with computer aided analysis.The objectives of the course expect students tosystematically solve problems; demonstrate safe habits, identify and apply electronic theory,circuits components, and equipment; and identify and apply basic
researchers seek to understand whether and to what extent thedevelopment of engineering “habits of mind and action” in middle school STEM (science,technology, engineering, and math) courses leads to improvements in problem solving abilities,integration of STEM content, and increased interest in engineering. The Next Generation ScienceStandards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013) call for “raising engineering design to the samelevel as scientific inquiry in science classroom instruction at all levels” (p. 1). Reflecting thisemphasis on engineering as a core idea, recent reforms include proficiency in engineering designas a key component of college and career readiness (Auyang, 2004; Carr, Bennett, & Strobel,2012; Duderstadt, 2008; Kelly, 2014
(3) including both Google Docs and interactive videos in the third. End-of-Course Surveys consistently show that the students enjoyed the weekly hands-on labs. After thethird class offering, an additional survey of student experience with the new technologies wasconducted. The results reflected a positive student experience with the course delivery.EE110 Course Description and ObjectivesIntroduction to Engineering, EE110 provides the beginning engineer with fundamentalknowledge and skills associated with the electrical or computer engineering professions. It willintroduce common electronic components, basic circuit configurations, and laboratoryinstruments. Bench practices and lab reports will be introduced along with computer aidedanalysis
,analyses of award winning products, and a case study of a long-term design project, DesignHeuristics capture the cognitive “rules of thumb” used by designers to intentionally vary their setof candidate designs[23]. These strategies appear to be ones that expert designers employautomatically, without consciously deciding to do so[24]. The heuristics were individuallyextracted across multiple concepts from multiple designers to reflect a useful level of abstractionin describing how to alter design characteristics to create new ones[25]. The resulting set of DesignHeuristics capture 77 different strategies, each of which can be applied independently or in tocreate new designs[26].The set of Design Heuristics is packaged as an instructional tool for
. Instructional Design, on the other hand, is the systematic and reflective process oftranslating principles of learning and instruction into plans for, instructional materials, activities,information resources, and evaluation [1]. Teaching refers to the learning experiences that arefacilitated by a human being. Smith and Ragan [1] identifies three steps in instructional design inthe following way: a. Identifying the Goals through Analysis – This involves consideration of the learning outcomes to be achieved, background of students and the nature of the teaching activity such as lecture, workshop, and lab work. b. Development of an Instructional Strategy – This is the planning of how the instruction will take place
. Produces practical solutions based on meeting requirements of analyzed problem components. g1. Reports describe goals, methods and solutions at the level appropriate for the reader. Relevant technical literature is identified and used appropriately. g2. Presentations clearly describe goals, methods and solutions. g3. Responds to questions, comments and criticism in a clear and appropriate manner in oral interactions. h1a. Exhibits curiosity & initiative. h1b. Exhibits reflection. h2. Participates in discipline-relevant professional societies and organizations. i1. Demonstrates an understanding of the Code of Professional Engineers. i2. Recognizes importance of respect for diversity. j1. Identifies both potential benefits and adverse
Psychology from Stanford University. Her current research interests include: 1) engineering and en- trepreneurship education; 2) the pedagogy of ePortfolios and reflective practice in higher education; and 3) redesigning the traditional academic transcript.Dr. Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University Sheri D. Sheppard, Ph.D., P.E., is professor of Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University. Besides teaching both undergraduate and graduate design and education related classes at Stanford University, she conducts research on engineering education and work-practices, and applied finite element analysis. From 1999-2008 she served as a Senior Scholar at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, leading the
Science and Biomedical Engineering Courses. 2016. 2. Betebenner D. Norm-‐and criterion-‐referenced student growth. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 2009;28(4):42–51. 3. Tam M. University impact on student growth: a quality measure? J High Educ Policy Manag. 2002;24(2):211–218. 4. Carberry A, Krause S, Ankeny C, Waters C. “Unmuddying” course content using muddiest point reflections. IEEE; 2013. p. 937–942. 5. Cohen GS, Blumberg P, Ryan NC, Sullivan PL. Do final grades reflect written qualitative evaluations of student performance? Teach Learn Med Int J. 1993;5(1):10–15. 6. Allen JD. Grades as
bedetermined through qualitative analysis of course names and descriptions.This study has currently finished phase 1 (online data collection). Phase 2 will be completedduring the first semester of 2017, and phase 3 during the summer of 2017. The results in thispaper reflect findings for phase 1 and are aimed at helping CM educators evaluate the presentlevel of collaboration between AEC undergraduate programs in the United States.Partial ResultsSample DemographicsThere are 129 ASC affiliated schools in regions 1 through 7 in the association’s website.Region eight was excluded from the analysis as it encompasses only schools from outside ofthe United States. Other exclusions were made and are presented below. Finally, this researchwas conducted using