research.IntroductionThe National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and engineering educators envision a bettertomorrow by preparing undergraduate STEM students to define and build a sustainable, secure,healthy and enjoyable future [1-3]. The NAE fourteen grand challenges encompass the greatestchallenges and opportunities that engineers face and will continue to face in the 21st Century.This work describes the design, implementation and assessment of a summer undergraduateresearch experience curriculum that was established in 2022 to strengthen an existingengineering Grand Challenges Scholars Program (GCSP) in a southeastern Research-One LandGrant institution. The goal of this 10-week summer Research Experience for Undergraduates(REU) program was to provide hands-on
is the hidden curriculumsurrounding P&T. ‘Hidden curriculum’ refers to unwritten norms, practices, and expectationsrooted in traditional routes to academic advancement. Much attention has been paid in theliterature to the effectiveness of various types of mentoring in helping faculty navigate P&T [1] -[3]. We add to this literature by focusing on the role of pre-tenure peer reviews as mentoringopportunities. These reviews are often conducted in the third year and could serve as a mentoringmoment to help faculty gain a deeper understanding of P&T standards, expectations, and wherethey stand in their progress toward tenure. To learn more about the effectiveness of these reviewsin helping faculty prepare for P&T, we conducted
to contribute significantly to the increase of askilled workforce [1]. According to a previous estimate, about 315,000 civil engineeringpositions must be added by 2030 to meet the need for future civil engineering projects [1].Although the work of civil engineers is increasingly recognized by American society, where theyhave helped improve the sustainability of infrastructure and the quality of the environment [1],the supply of civil engineers is constrained by the steadily decreasing number of studentsenrolled in civil engineering programs. Statistics reveal that while full-time engineeringenrollments nearly doubled between 2010 and 2020, the number of undergraduate studentsstudying civil engineering declined by 3,145 [2], [3]. Although
support for the GTAs to make the connections between what they want to teach (content),how to teach it (pedagogy), and what technological tools can be used to teach it (technology).Future studies will explore possibilities of implementing this and its impact on the GTAs’ TPACKdomains. 1Introduction Graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) are graduate students who assist professors inteaching courses through performing teaching practices such as presenting information, explainingcertain concepts to students, communicating with students and assessing students’ learningoutcomes [1]. Nevertheless, for GTAs to implement effective teaching practices
. Collaboration 1 paired a100-level engineering Information Literacy class in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering witha 300-level Educational Foundation class. Collaboration 2 combined a 300-levelElectromechanical Systems class in Mechanical Engineering with a 400-level EducationalTechnology class. Collaboration 3 paired a 300-level Fluid Mechanics class in MechanicalEngineering Technology with a 400-level Elementary Science Methods class. Collaborations 1and 3 interacted with fourth or fifth graders by developing and delivering lessons to theelementary students. Students in collaboration 2 worked with fifth graders in an after-schooltechnology club. While each collaboration had its unique elements, all collaborations includedthe engineering design
alsoincluded.IntroductionA learning environment that engages students cognitively, affectively, and behaviorally is anessential component of the larger engagement that include elements such as sense of belonging,and institutional support [1]. Cognitive engagement supports deeper understanding of thelearning materials, affective engagement encourages students to be vested in their learning, andbehavioral engagement fosters an environment of on-task behavior conducive to learning. Therelationship between engagement and various markers of academic success and learning hasbeen empirically studied extensively and found to be positively correlated [1] - [6]. Activelearning has been reported as an effective pedagogy for cognitive engagement [7], [8]. Studentmotivation is
with hands-on design. To the extent thatundergraduate engineering experiments are essential to prepare these future engineers to excel in theirprofession [1-2]. Whetton [3] states that instructional design requires the thoughtful choice of readingmaterials, assignments, activities and most of all learning objectives. In the context of experimentation,Sivaloganathan et al. [4] adds that the choice between experiments is critical for an often tightly packedcurricula. For more than two decades, the engineering community has struggled with finding an appropriatebalance between classical pedagogy and practical experiences for developing engineers [5]. Kolb’s work[6] is often cited regarding experiential learning as the start of discussions
been developed to improve engineering design skills of firstyear students like design thinking exercises, the Engineering Design Canvas, and strategies forcommunicating ideas. The evidence-based practice described in this study consists of in-classexercises for each of these tools which include 1) an IDEO design thinking worksheet at thebeginning of the project, 2) the Engineering Design Canvas at the middle of the project, and 3)the Heitmeier Catechism design communication strategies at the end of the project.This study was conducted at New York University in the first-year multidisciplinary introductoryengineering course General Engineering 1004 Introduction to Engineering and Design. Eachsemester, half of the 700 first-year students enroll
Fast-Forward Engineering Program is a summer bridge and scholarship programat Louisiana Tech University funded by the National Science Foundation that allows risingsophomore engineering students to continue their curriculum ahead of schedule [1]. Eligibility isbased on unmet financial need and on-track degree progression to achieve a 4-year graduation.The program allows students to get more interaction with the faculty as well as increasedinteraction with their peers. The program also allows students to take part in local industry visitsso that students may see first-hand various engineering workplace settings. Due to COVID-19,the industry visits were virtual for the Summers of 2020 and 2021. Students participated in Zoomlectures from industry
students. This work is important because undergraduate research is wellestablished as an effective tool to support students in moving to graduate programs, in particular forunderrepresented students [1]–[3]. Underrepresented students have reported that mindset and mentoringare important factors in succeeding in STEM fields [4], [5].In 2019 our team developed a faculty development workshop focused on undergraduate researchexperiences in engineering and computer science. Our goal was to help faculty members to think aboutmentoring undergraduate students as an opportunity to help shape student mindsets. We believe thatfocusing on the research experience as a growth-oriented student experience leads to much richeroutcomes than focusing purely on
in undergraduate students.Implications: Implications of this study relate to (1) the need to provide students withprofessional skills, such as project management and teamwork, in addition to research skills tohelp them cultivate self-regulated abilities and (2) methods for facilitating undergraduateresearch.Keywords: undergraduate research, self-regulated learning, project management, scrum,mentoring1. IntroductionUndergraduate research is often described as the exploration of a specific research topic by anundergraduate student - on their own or in collaboration with faculty members or other students -to make an original contribution to the discipline. It is a recent concept in the academiccommunity, with roots in the nineteenth and
was in the late 1700s thatresearch was harnessed to address specific needs of society. Countries, and later industrieswould gather groups of scientific individuals to solve challenges related to particular topics. Theindustrial age brought many advances revolutionizing how things were made. World wars alsocontributed to the need for targeted research. It was in the 1950s that the relationship betweenresearch and development (R & D) was recognized [1], connecting research to the developmentof new products and new forms of old products. This connection became the foundation for R &D at the university. Since WWII, innovative research activity has been the single, most importantcomponent of long-term economic growth [2]. Research programs
doesn’t usually match the mental models that undergraduate searchers areaccustomed to when using Google. In human cognition, mental models are important schemas of the world that people use toreason, solve problems, and make inferences across situations [1]. When students apply theirmental models of Google-like search expectations to single search bars on library websites orscientific databases, they are often met with confusing, unexpected, or incorrect results. Thepurpose of this exploratory study is to evaluate undergraduate College of Engineering andCollege of Sciences and Arts students’ real-world search strategies during a library instructionsession at Michigan Technological University (MTU). College of Engineering students
Developing Complex Problem-Solving Competency: An Exploration Based on Engineering Teachers’ PerspectivesBackgroundComplex problem-solving (CPS) has been considered as one of the key competenciesfor professional engineers [1]-[2] and has been increasingly emphasized byinternational engineering education certification bodies (for instance, ABET [3]).However, general observations of engineering education practice show that althoughcultivating students’ complex engineering problem-solving competency has become acommon vision for education researchers and practitioners, there is an obvious gapbetween research progress and real classroom practice [4]-[6]. Although differentframeworks have been presented by researchers to
challenge students and facultyto think beyond their disciplinary expertise and work on complex problems that requireperspectives from multiple disciplines. Despite the rise of these interdisciplinary programs, thedisciplinary silos that persist in university settings create several structural barriers that hinderinterdisciplinary programs from achieving their full potential; these include conflicts in policies,procedures, and budget models across disciplines [1]. While several of these conflicts have beenexplored by researchers in the early 2000s [2], [3], the persistence of the challenges coupled withthe urgency of interdisciplinary work to address global challenges warrants renewed attention tothese issues. In particular, despite the challenges
we will propose appropriate supports, such as workshops andgroup activities, to help international students in engineering adjust to the gender-related culturein the U.S.IntroductionInternational graduate students in engineering are a significant presence in the U.S., with manyof them hailing from countries with distinct cultures from that of the U.S. The Institute ofInternational Education reported that 385,097 international graduate students were enrolled inU.S. higher education during the 2021-2022 academic year [1]. In addition, 54% of internationalstudents pursued degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields,with a majority of them enrolled in engineering and computer science programs [1]. In terms ofthe
reasons why some students view an engineering degree as atransaction, which can help shape more effective approaches to their professional preparation.IntroductionWhile existing literature suggests undergraduate engineering students’ sense of belonging andengineering identity are indicators of their likelihood of graduating and feeling empoweredwithin their major [1], not all undergraduate engineering students desire a strong sense ofbelonging among their departmental cohort or instructors. With the goal of effective professionalformation of diverse types of engineering students, this single case study seeks to provideinsights into the experiences of one minoritized engineering student with a low sense ofbelonging in his engineering department
Classroom Integration: A Critical Feminism Perspective Anna Yinqi Zhang Pennsylvania State University Brian R. Belland, PhD Pennsylvania State University ‘I'm really big into gender equality… women’s rights’ — informant IntroductionThe underrepresentation of girls and women in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics(STEM) has been a long-standing concern for many [1], [2]. Despite a tremendous increase inwomen's college enrollment, men continue to outnumber women in STEM fields, and bygraduation, men outnumber women in nearly every Engineering and Science major and thedifference in majors like Engineering
significantamount of stress from many different sources. Previous work has demonstrated a correlationbetween the amount of discrete stressors (including academic and personal) and the quantifiedstress level of graduate students. However, more qualitative analysis is still needed to moreaccurately characterize the stressors graduate students face, and the coping mechanisms they useto mitigate the ill effects of stress.This paper seeks to answer the following research questions: (1) What elements of theengineering graduate student experience cause students stress? And (2) What methods of copingdo students depend upon to persist in engineering graduate education? To answer thesequestions, we surveyed graduate engineering students at a mid-sized Mid-Atlantic
engineering students should provide at least five things to lead to students’further academic success and prepare them for the job market: 1) material mastery, 2)communication, and collaboration, 3) software/programming skills, 4) learning andmetacognition, and 5) confidence. Students in traditional lecture-based classrooms may not betaught these skills [1][2]. Numerous studies have shown that active and cooperative learningclasses are better at addressing these than traditional lecture-based classes [3]. Some examples ofActive learning (AL) and Cooperative learning (CL) [4] are 1) Flipped classroom, 2) Studentpresentation, 3) Student projects, 4) Student discussion, and 5) Student group work.A traditional calculus class is often content-driven and
, especially as they navigate across and within different modalities,sometimes simultaneously. Therefore, to be able to design and facilitate effective HyFlexenvironments, educators must understand the relationship between students' self-regulation andtheir choice of daily participation across modality. In this research, by comparing students’ self-regulation skills and attendance patterns, we examined the relationship between participationchoices and self-regulation in a HyFlex environment. 1 Literature Review HyFlex HyFlex, short for hybrid-flexible, is an
known that female students often experience a “chilly” cultural climate in engineering,affecting many student outcomes, including persistence in engineering programs, but the currentliterature lacks a comparison of women’s experiences across different engineering disciplines.Perspectives of male students on gender equity and perception of cultural climate across differentdisciplines are also missing. We studied three engineering disciplines—aerospace, civil, andchemical—with varying proportions of female students to investigate the following researchquestions: 1) What is the current state of the cultural climate for women studying engineering intheir respective disciplines at the studied university? How do increased proportions of
= 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝑥) = 𝑥 − + 6 120 2 4 𝑥⁄ = 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝑥) = 1 − 𝑥 + 𝑥 𝐴 2 24 𝑦⁄ 𝑥 3 2𝑥 5 𝑥 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛(𝑥) = 𝑥 + 3 + 15 𝐴2 = 𝑥 2 + 𝑦 2 1This paper is not written from a research perspective. There was no collectedstudent data. This paper will contain a full written abbreviated chapter that can beincluded in any first semester trigonometry or physics course. Formula derivationswill not be included, and knowledge of radian measure will be assumed
may help other educators, it is worthintroducing, at a fundamental level, why we decided to adopt the ungraded classroom in the firstplace. To do this, we ask a question: How does an expert academic or practitioner learn deeplyand master their field? Marshall Lib asked this question to ASEE in 1996 [1]. While he used theanalogy of learning to play a sport to how expert engineers form, and that often that formation isoutside of the classroom and subsequent to the formal education of the person, we see significantopportunities to heighten engineering formation in the classroom through pedagogical techniquesthat follow the call of Marshall Lib. Again, how does an expert academic or practitioner learndeeply and master their field? Quite simply
consideration of theirefforts and completed correct work.This paper will discuss these ungrading efforts in the course, student feedback throughout the semester, andrecommendations for other instructors interested in applying an ungrading approach in their courses.BackgroundThe process of assessment through standard letter grades and the traditional 100-point scale has developedover the past few centuries, driven by the push for uniformity and consistency in assessment betweeninstitutions.1 Of course, the degree to which uniform objective assessment system through grades has everbeen truly achieved can easily be questioned, as in part noted by the wide range of grades that could beassigned to the same submitted work from a range of different assessors
, identifying curricular laboratory activities that areeducational, engaging to all students, and that meet students’ career interests is valuable insupporting a positive engineering educational experience.IntroductionIncorporating accessibility topics into engineering curricula is important toward training futureengineers in inclusive design, yet these topics are not commonly addressed in engineeringcurricula [1] . Beyond the didactic motivation to include inclusive design topics for careertraining, previous work has also described that including accessibility and disability topics canincrease participation of students with disabilities and other historically excluded andunderrepresented (HEU) groups in the engineering classroom [2]. In addition
from all 50 Democrats and19 Republicans [1] which authorizes $550 billion in new investments in various infrastructureprojects around the United States in addition to renewing funding for ongoing efforts. It alsoinvolves funding for more traditional infrastructures like roads, bridges, airports, ports, rail, andtransportation in addition to repairing water systems, rebuilding the electric grid, enhancingbroadband and internet access, and building a network of electric vehicle chargers to encouragesustainable transportation modes. Additionally, it contains $21 billion for the environmentalcleaning of hazardous waste sites and $1 billion to "reconnect communities," especially Blackand low-income neighborhoods that were fragmented by earlier
education.Program FrameworkThe conscious competence model (CCM) was used to lay the foundation for the mentortraining program. The model comprises 4 stages of competence from unconsciousincompetence to unconscious competence in learning skills. This training program was set onthe first two stages which are unconscious incompetence and conscious incompetence.Unconscious incompetence is the stage when the individual is unaware of the deficit of skills[1]. In the first stage, educators were requested to define mentoring in their own terms.Coding for the qualitative analysis of the data were used which included words such as:guiding, nurturing, information, mutual, share experience, engage in growth, relationship,support, advise and learning. The data
intersection of engineering and the humanities acrossCanada, our community is limited to CEEA-ACÉG members who are interested in, and alsohave the capacity to actively engage with, our smaller community on a monthly basis. CEEA-ACÉG’s annual conference represents a valuable opportunity for us to dialogue with and learnfrom colleagues who may not be regularly engaged with our SIG.The theme of the CEEA-ACÉG 2022 conference was “Transforming Learners to Transform OurWorld.” The conference agenda focused on engineers’ responsibility to address “wicked”sociotechnical problems, and highlighted the value in bringing together “people who are notafraid to push, bend, twist, and break apart the boundaries of traditional engineering practice”[1]. To address this
, Technology, Engineering, and Math) students,change their major at least once while in university [1]. However, much of the research on thistopic focuses on the ‘why’ of major changes rather than the ‘where’ [2]–[5]. Such studies employframeworks like expectancy-value theory or social cognitive career theory to explain studentrational for changing majors, often highlighting the role elements like grade point average [6],salary expectations [7], or engineering identity [8] play in the decision-making process.Just as important as knowing why students change majors, however, is knowing what majorsstudents are leaving and entering. To this end, a historic dataset was used to examineundergraduate engineering student degree program changes. The following