programs. Differentexperiences, values, beliefs, and attitudes that are a result of the intersection of multipledimensions of identity are allowed to naturally separate themselves. Furthermore, using thisprofile analysis allowed for new patterns to emerge that would have been previouslyoverlooked. For example, if two groups of respondents were distinct from each other in theattitudinal map but were similar along all measured axes of diversity (e.g., gender andrace/ethnicity), it is a signal that the separation between the groups is the result of anintersection with some unconsidered dimension(s) of attitudes or personal characteristics.Because TDA does not presuppose the qualitative or demographic information about thestudents it analyzes, the
Paper ID #19391Cross College Faculty Collaboration for the development of a new major inDesign and Construction IntegrationLuciana de Cresce El Debs, Purdue University Programs Luciana Debs, is an Assistant Professor of Construction Management in the School Construction Manage- ment Technology at Purdue University. She received her PhD from Purdue University Main Campus. Her previous degrees include a MS from the Technical Research Institute of Sao Paulo (IPT-SP), and BArch from the University of S˜ao Paulo (USP), in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Prior to her current position she worked in design coordination in construction and real
collection, and to their supervisors in the Enrollment Management division for supportingtheir efforts.ReferencesBieri Buschor, C., Berweber, S., Keck Frei, A. & Kappler, C. (2014). Majoring in STEM-Whataccounts for women’s career decision making? A mixed methods study. The Journal ofEducational Research, 107, 167-176. Table 5. Development of Pipeline Programs at WPI* Year Program Time Age Audience Founded Frontiers Summer 1985 High School Boys and Girls Camp Reach Summer 1997 Middle School Girls
Lock and Dam System Concrete Steel 3:30 -- 4:00 Material Material 4:00 -- 4:30 Team Building Exercise Lab Lab 4:30 -- 5:00 Note: The two material laboratory exercises run parallel with students split into two groups.Program Highlights Unique features of the CCSU NSTI program are the welcome luncheon and graduationceremony. The welcome luncheon is scheduled on the first day. FHWA Division Officerepresentative(s), CTDOT liaisons, university administrators (Admissions and Dean's Office),participating faculty, and speakers from the
group discussion, groups reported back to the class. The instructors compiledconsensus items into a master list, which was distributed to the class as a rubric. (See AppendicesA-C for student-generated rubrics.)Call To Action:Students were asked to use the rubric as a guide when reviewing drafts.Autumn Workshop Session(s) 2 or 2-3 (75 min or 2x50 min):Expectations for Conduct and Useful Feedback; Peer Review in Small GroupsObjective:Enable students to provide meaningful guided peer review of drafts.Activation:The instructor asked students to share prior peer review experiences to uncover what constitutesuseful feedback. The class reached consensus on the following criteria for providing helpfulfeedback: 1) Always suggest something actionable
and recognition influenceachievement and interest, especially for girls and women.26,30-36 The preference for empatheticwork appears to help women maintain their identities, not merely adopt the identities ofmen.3,4,37-39Interest. The National Research Council identifies interest as a critical factor in predictingfuture engagement in STEM.40 Studies focused on girls in STEM indicate girls lack interest, notability.4,41 Interest may have a larger influence than academic achievement on choice of STEMas a career.42,43 Fewer and fewer students have been choosing to major in scientific fields atsecondary and university levels.44,45 In some areas, such as mechanical and electricalengineering, the number of women has declined since the 1960’s.46
avery brief measure, a 5-item innovation self-efficacy (ISE.5) scale was developed using the 19-item Dyer et al. Innovative Behavior Scale (IBS) as a starting point, adapted for undergraduateengineering students, and then condensed using confirmatory factor analysis.The ISE.5 measures innovation self-efficacy as a unitary construct drawn from Dyer et al.’s fiveinnovative behavior components (Questioning, Observing, Experimenting, Networking Ideas andAssociational Thinking) and has good internal and external validity as well as good test-retestreliability. The ISE.5 (as a measure of innovation self-efficacy) is shown to be an importantmediator between innovation interests and a desire to pursue innovative work as a career post-graduation. This
equationsof the form P(D)y(t) = Q(D)x(t), for derivative operations P(D) and Q(D) and functions x(t) andy(t) by looking at the equation in a different light. The transform reframes the equation as analgebraic equation in a new variable s by which the solution is easily obtained; in fact, for acompletely relaxed system (no initial conditions), the transform almost appears to amount to aninnocent change of variables. The new world of frequency is not trivial; in fact, the concept of "frequency response" is a difficulty when teaching circuits and controls. Two prominent methods of visualizing the frequency response exist, Bode Plots and Nyquist
. W., & Osipow, S. H. (1966). Vocational certainty and indecision incollege freshmen. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 44(10), 1037-1041.Atadero, R. A., Rambo‐Hernandez, K. E., & Balgopal, M. M. (2015). Using social cognitivecareer theory to assess student outcomes of group design projects in statics. Journal ofEngineering Education, 104(1), 55-73.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Betz, N. E., & Voyten, K. K. (1997). Efficacy and outcome expectations
measurement of engineering identity was accomplished using an adapted version of Godwinet al.’s (2016) measure of identity. Godwin et al. concludes that an engineering student’sengineering identity is a function of four attitudes relating to interest, performance, recognitionand agency. Interest is the student’s innate attraction to the subject material surroundingengineering, such as math, science and physics. Performance is an academic self-efficacyconstruct measuring how much a student believes in their ability to positively perform inacademically in engineering coursework. Recognition is how a student believes they arerecognized as an engineer, particularly by meaningful others such as parents or professors.Finally, agency or as Godwin et al
University. Special acknowledgment is given to Dr. Amanda Goodson, Founder ofAmanda Goodson Global. She served as the Professional Development Consultant anddeveloped and implemented the curriculum for this PDW.Bibliography 1. Emmer, M. J. and Brunhoeffer, G. C. F. Knowledge and attributes of forecasting index: Self-assessment for graduating Construction Management students. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Associated Schools of Construction Annual International Conference. 2015. http://www.ascpro.ascweb.org/chair/paper/CERT385002015.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2017. 2. Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., and Lent, R. W. Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling
University of Michigan-Dearborn Advancement ofTeaching and Learning Fund and the NSF Award #1245036 Collaborative Education: Building aSkilled V&VF Community. We would like to thank Ms. Raminderdeep Randhawa who workedas Research Assistant on this project and Ms. Navin Tama who worked as a Graduate StudentInstructor for the fall 2016 offering of CIS 375. They gave generously of their time and energy tothis project.Bibliography1. Branch R. (2010): Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach, Springer, 2010.2. Ardis, M., Chenoweth, S. and Young, F. (2008): “The ‘Soft’ Topics in Software Engineering Education”, Proceedings of 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference (Vol. 1, Oct 2008), IEEE Press, Saratoga Springs, NY, 2008, pp. F3H1
Pittsburgh. To see moredetailed results please refer to Benson, L., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Matherly, C., Shuman, L., Ragusa, G., Streiner, S.,“Assessing the Spectrum of International Undergraduate Engineering Educational Experiences: A Cross InstitutionalSurvey” Conference Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, June 25-28, 2017, Columbus, OH; ID #20308.3 Besterfield Sacre, M., Matherly C., Ragusa, G., Benson, L., University of Rhode Island Report: Cross-InstitutionalStudy on Assessing the Spectrum of International Undergraduate Engineering Educational Experiences, printprovided July 22, 2016. Results of the Cross-institutional Study presented at a workshop on May 23rd, 2017 atLehigh University: “The work consists of three studies. The first
appointment of five lead engineers to serve as project mentors for theprogram. These project mentors selected ten community college students from a shortlist of 20candidates provided by two members of the RU team (lead principal investigator and graduatestudent researcher) who conducted 34 interviews from an original pool of 58 applicants. Originalapplicants represented a range of individual differences: 26% female, 55% underrepresentedethnic minorities; 57% first generation; 27% veterans; 62% low-income; 5% students with1This research was supported by, or in part by, the U. S. Office of Naval Research under awardnumber N00014-15-1-2438.disabilities2. The final selection of ten from this diverse pool echoed such diversity: two females,five minorities
applications of positively impacting others areeasily connected in the biomedical engineering field. Nearly 40% of biomedical engineers arewomen. Although males are still the majority in this field, biomedical engineering is one of themore popular engineering fields among women.15 The final major change to our program fornext year is our goal to interview participants about their experiences. We will utilize this as away for students to reflect on their experiences as well as a way for us to receive more rich dataabout the short-term impacts of our program.Resources[1] F. Halpern, D., Aronson, J., Reimer, N., Simpkins, S., R. Star, J., & Wentzel, K. (2007,September 1). Encouraging Girls in Math and Science. Retrieved December 2, 2014, fromhttp
Student Affairs, Washington, DC: Author.2. Schneider, C.J. and Miller, R. (2005). Liberal education outcomes: A preliminary report onstudent achievement in college, Association of American Colleges and Universities, Washington.DC.3. Baxter Magolda, M.B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming highereducation to promote self-development. Stylus Publishing.4. Parks Daloz, L.A., Keen, C.H., Keen, J.P. and Daloz Parks, S. (1996). Common fire: lives ofcommitment in a complex world. Beacon.5. Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2010) The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts and Tools,Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.6. Paul, R., Niewoehner, R. and Elder, L. (2006). The thinker’s guide to engineering reasoning,Foundation Critical
.[7] Kotche, M., and S. Tharp, Interdisciplinary Medical Product Development Senior Capstone Design, Proceedings of the 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Seattle, WA, June 14-17, 2015.[8] Redekopp, M., Raghavendra, C., Weber, A., Ragusa, G., and T. Wilbur, A Fully Interdisciplinary Approach to Capstone Design Courses, Proceedings of the 116th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Austin, TX, June 14-17, 2009.[9] Seaward, G., Converting Single Disciplinary Capstone Projects to Interdisciplinary Experiences, Proceedings of the 108th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Albuquerque, NM, June 24-27, 2001.[10] Sirinterlicki, A., Interdisciplinary Capstone Projects, Proceedings of the 121st ASEE Annual
formative assessments to favordifferent learning styles (Wang, Wang et al. 2006). Both learning style and formativeassessment strategy significantly affected student achievement, though, consistent with Pashler etal.’s conclusion, the interaction between these factors was not significant. Additionally, as thisstudy was performed with a web-based middle-school biology course, a gap remains with regardto undergraduate engineering education.As the primary motivation for this study is increasing the diversity of the engineering graduatesthat colleges and universities prepare for the workforce, some evidence demonstrates thatvarying teaching approaches to favor a multitude of learning styles may aid in achieving thatparticular end. A validation study of
realobject. Based on free responses it can be said that some students appreciated the link betweentheory and practice. The activity has gained interest at the author’s institution where two additional instructorshave adopted it. It is anticipated that it will evolve as a result of broader deployment.Acknowledgements The author acknowledges the James Madison University Quality Collaborative project,funded by Lumina Foundation.References[1] S. D. Sheppard and B. H. Tongue, Statics Analysis and Design of Systems in Equilibrium (revisd edition), Danvers, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007.[2] F. P. Beer, E. R. Johnston, Jr., D. F. Mazurek, P. J. Cornwell and B. P. Self, Vector Mechanics for Engineers (11th edition), New York, NY: McGraw
Engineering Programs, 2016-2017 (p. 25). Baltimore, MD.Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with Understanding: Lessons from Research on Problem- and Project- Based Learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3/4), 271–311.Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3/4), 369.Boaler, J., & Greeno, J. G. (2000). Identity, Agency, and Knowing in Mathematics Worlds. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple Perspectives on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 171– 200
gained.References1. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. American Pyschologist, 37(2), 122-147.2. Basawapatna, A., Repenning, A., & Koh, K. H. (2015). Closing The Cyberlearning Loop. Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - SIGCSE '15, (pp. 12-17).3. Bean, N., Weese, J. L., Feldhausen, R., & Bell, R. (2015). Starting From Scratch: Developing a Pre- Service Teacher Program in Computational Thinking. Frontiers in Education.4. Bell, R. S. (2014). Low Overhead Methods for Improving Capacity and Outcomes in Computer Science. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University.5. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). Using artifact-based interviews to study the
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Dr. Trevor S. Harding is Professor of Materials Engineering at California Polytechnic State University where he teaches courses in materials design, sustainable materials, and polymeric materials. Dr. Harding is PI on several educational research projects including the psychology of ethical decision making and promoting the use of reflection in engineering education. He serves as Associate Editor of the journals Advances in Engineering Education and International Journal of Service Learning in Engineering. Dr. Harding has served numerous leadership positions in ASEE including division chair for the Materials Division and the Community Engagement Division. Dr. Harding received
division grades, collectively andindividually, do not predict upper-division design grades, we still require a minimum level ofexposure to the math, science, and, engineering concepts without which students are doingdesign outside of an engineering context. These results may also be indicative of the relationshipfor traditional capstone design experiences. Additional research is necessary to see if theseeffects hold true in that context. The implications for the study are that additional information inprogram applications must be included to effectively predict a student’s performance.References 1. S. Singer and K. A. Smith, “Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and
strong data that could indicate best practices, and which do not? Format of Final Product: The team would spend one (or if desired, two) semester(s) developing a set of critical areas for further investigation, culminating in an article suitable for a peer-reviewed journal.additional references, each, to clarify their portion of the outline. To share his or herfindings, each student used a 5-slide PowerPoint presentation to explain what he or shehad learned. The DoS participated via teleconference in the instructor-facilitateddiscussion. Then, for four weeks, each student worked independently to write a five-page, singled-spaced, draft document with a minimum of fifteen references, each, thatclarified his or her
organizations often tend to amplify the moral and political values that are lacking and need to be further enhanced in developing contexts. They view technologies as instruments for well-being rather than profits.As engineering educators who are interested in preparing future engineers for the increasinglyglobalized future, we need to be careful about what kind(s) of “global engineers” we are training.Emphasizing one or two approaches to engineering ethics over others represents an incompleteapproach that fails to project an appropriately comprehensive view of global engineering practice.Obviously, we are not training every student to become a professional engineer working in amultinational business company, nor do we expect that
the given image. For example, one student (S03) wrote the following in hispre-VTS essay: “This mural shows us a landscape ... As for the content of this mural, ...[y]ou see a man in the middle who looks to be working next to some kind of fence in the pond that take[s] water closer to the house in the background.”InterpretationLike the quote above, most essays also contained writing that functioned to interpret the contentin the image. For example, another student (S02) wrote in his pre-VTS essay: Table 5. Preliminary Results of Inductive Coding of Short Essay Responses Before and After VTS Workshop (n=6) Total # of
focused on ambitious goals:“To take full advantage of the benefits and to recognize, address, and even avoid some of thepitfalls of technology. . . [to help citizens] become better stewards of technological change” (p.2). Then, as now, “technological literacy” is the most widely recognized way of describing theproject(s) in which this division is engaged. In my 2006 paper, I argued that we needed torename the enterprise, mainly because “literacy” implied remediation rather than the aspirationto create something that had never existed before: a well-informed citizenry with the knowledge,motivation, and confidence to engage in purposeful deliberation about technology. Looking back from a distance of over 10 years, I am pleased to say that