American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE), The Collaborative Network for Engineering and Computing Diversity (CoNECD), Frontiers in Education (FIE), as well as major psychological con- ferences.Catherine G. P. Berdanier, Pennsylvania State University Catherine G.P. Berdanier is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Penn- sylvania State University. She earned her B.S. in Chemistry from The University of South Dakota, her M.S. in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering and her PhD in Engineering Education from Purdue University. Her research expertise lies in characterizing graduate-level attrition, persistence, and career trajectories; engineering writing and communication; and
Paper ID #38301”Better Living through Chemistry?” DuPont & TeflonDr. Marilyn A. Dyrud, Oregon Institute of Technology Marilyn Dyrud retired in 2017 as a professor emerita in the Communication Department at Oregon In- stitute of Technology, where she taught classes in writing, speech, rhetoric, and ethics for four decades. She received her BA in 1972 from the University of the Pacific in Stockton, CA, and her graduate degrees from Purdue University: MA in 1974 and PhD in 1980. She became involved in engineering education by joining ASEE in 1983 and is currently active in two divisions: Engineering Ethics and Engineering
Program information Connections to peer mentors & supports SJ: Data on belonging in STEM ADEI definitions Identity & Examples of equity in STEM Bias & Prejudice Belonging How identity pertains to engineering Social Identity Wheel (case studies) Story Sharing ENGR: Engineering design process Socially just mindset & contexts How Engineers Role of failure in design Social impact of product/design Make Decisions
twentieth centuries. The creation of MIT'sUndergraduate Research Opportunities Program in 1969 encouraged an explosion in popularitysuch that Undergraduate Research Programs (URPs) became fairly common globally by the1990s.Developing and maintaining URPs benefit students, faculty mentors, and the university equally.Incorporating a research component along with a sound academic foundation enables students togain research and professional experience, work on real-world applications, develop oral andwritten communication skills as well as better relationships with faculty and peers [1]. Accordingto Thiry et al. [2], "Through coursework and out-of-class experiences, students describedlearning to work and think independently, to take responsibility for
efficacy, COVID-19hindered many students’ ability to allocate time for studying and well-being in the same mannerthey had prior to the pandemic, partially due to the way it “distorted [their] flow of time” [4].Students recorded the effects of this alteration in time diaries, writing that “the effort put intoclass feels more intensive yet yields much worse results”, and even when they could completetheir work, “it takes much longer” [2]. These responses suggest that students are no longer gettingthe expected returns from their time spent studying. In [5], a modified version of the TimeManagement Behavior scale [3] was used to evaluate the time management behaviors ofundergraduate electrical and computer engineering students prior to the pandemic
technical writing Written Design Teamwork
transformation: the theory Mediated Learning Experience (MLE) from Feuerstein[23][26] and Maturana’s understanding of learning as a space of transformation for both thelearner and the teacher [27] [28].Mediated Learning Experience. Feuerstein defines the role of the mediator (or agent) asfundamental to promoting cognitive changes in a student. A teacher, a parent, or anadvantaged peer can fulfill this role, depending on the objective of transformation. Themediator must have maturity, experience, and the ability to organize, reorder, group, andstructure the stimuli or information the student receives based on a specific task or goal [26].This means that the agent mediates between the world and the student (subject), transformingthe stimuli the student
aid in the formation of peer-to-peer relationships[3] through a shared identity as a “maker”.Makerspaces are unique learning environments that center around the act of “making,” a broad term thatincludes almost all forms of creative manufacture such as sewing, woodworking, mechatronics, etc.Communities of practice form within these spaces as the collaborative use of machines and technologiespromote the sharing of ideas, knowledge, and experience[4] and a shared identity as a maker. Hilton[5]found that participation in university Makerspaces led to an increase in engineering design self-efficacyamongst undergraduate engineering students. Tomko[2] demonstrated that engagement in Makerspacesincreased engineering students’ motivation and
, K-12 Education, and Student Learning. For example, #8 in the journalranking list was “Journal of Second Language Writing”, in which one could assume the journalhas to do with english-as-a-second-language (ESL) or english-language-learner (ELL) topicsareas. If the journal title was ambiguous, then we conducted a more thorough investigation of thejournal’s scope or aim from its website, using the inclusion criteria above. During this phase, 140journals were excluded, and 118 journals remained for the next phase of collection andevaluation. The second phase began with a keyword search within each journal database. Werecorded the following information in a spreadsheet: journal ranking, title of journal, number ofarticles, publisher, and
universities participated in PFF“clusters” to help graduate students learn about and participate in faculty roles at nearbyinstitutions through seminars, mentoring, workshops, and observations [8], [17]. In their reviewof PFF programs, Diggs et al. [17] listed several distinct types of professional developmentprograms available to graduate students: formal mentoring, formal networking experiences,formal courses, short course/seminar, workshops, reading/writing assignments, teachingpracticum, and research mentoring practicum. Several publications have elaborated on smaller scale initiatives that can be categorizedin the above categories. For example, The Rising Engineering Education Faculty Experience(REEFE) founded at Virginia Tech’s Department
is the development of students' professional identity. To bettersupport students' professional identity development, we must understand what motives, values,and experiences across the curriculum contribute to its construction.This study reports on our recent interactions with instructors, alumni, and students of anEngineering Science program. The data was collected through interviews and focus groups thatallowed us to understand how each group of participants understood the role of engineeringdesign education. The data analysis showed us that to have a nuanced understanding of thepurpose of design courses, we need to ask students to reflect on how they connect their designexperiences to their professional identity through reflective writing
Orientation• Undergraduate research experience (URE) and internships• Strengthening K12-college pipelineThe student support initiatives of URE and internships, and strengthening K12-college pipelinewere especially very fruitful with our continuous and ongoing efforts with enrollment andretention. This was possible because of the high-level of faculty engagement in writing andsecuring grants that are targeted to enhance program capacity and student learning through varioussupport mechanisms (e.g., NSF S-STEM, NSF IUSE, NSF INCLUDES). Faculty were encouragedto pursue these educational grants and were supported by the institution through grants office andby providing some release time from teaching and other service activities.Targeted Faculty
specifically looking at STEM disciplines. Despite anincrease of students at the center of merging underrepresented identities enrolling inpost-secondary education institutions, their involvement in STEM programming is stilldisproportionate to straight, cis, white, peers [5]. As educators, we often think about the ways in which a student’s educational experience thattakes place many years before a student enters the workforce or a post-secondary institutionimpacts these graduation and employment rates in the STEM fields. The National ScienceFoundation Report on Science and Engineering Indicators (2018) demonstrates that thediscrepancies in STEM fields regarding gender begin before students leave high school. Of the12 Advanced Placement Courses reviewed
,and writing / presenting. The faculty was familiar with most students due to instruction ofprevious courses in the program. UG faculty provided pairs of student names which they deemedas complementary, while CU faculty did the same for groups of 3-4 students. These UG + CUgroupings were combined to form teams of 5 or 6 students. The program was held entirelyonline, and the official language was English. The course was a requirement for graduation forall students.The educational content and supporting activities of the course were structured as follows: Theclass was scheduled 5 days per week, for 2 hours per day. Core content to support the designprocess was delivered as “refreshers” on topics students would have practiced in detail during
challenges with teams.Nonetheless, the teams established before the pivot persisted throughout the semester andprovided students with sounding boards and peer feedback in breakout room sessions. The fearedattrition was minor, with only six students (~3%) dropping the course after the pivot to online.The most significant change was eliminating the team project and introducing two individualprojects. This change was made to avoid possible problems with teamwork in light of the pivot toZoom, such as hampered communication, team members dropping the course, or difficultysharing hardware. For the sections with 3D Printing, the individual projects were based on CADand the design of conditions for 3D Printing using slicing software. For sections
deductiveapproach to the data in which the existing theory of performance/competence was used tosupport the analysis [43]. The themes were shared with the second and last author, discussed,and refined until a consensus was reached. The other authors on this project were part of the PIteam, helped with the project's implementation, and contributed to the writing of this paper andthe interpretation of results to change programmatic features.Finally, we developed an individual narrative that illustrates a common path participants tookbetween the themes using the themes generated. This narrative presents an individual accountof identity development and brings chronological order and meaning to the data [46]. We focuson how all major themes manifest separately
areconsidered to have potential for success in the engineering program, but likely did not haveaccess to adequate preparation in math, chemistry, and/or physics prior to college matriculation. This setting allows us to examine the impact of remedial courses on the progress ofengineering students and their persistence. In particular, we are interested in whether thesestudents continue in engineering, declare their engineering major on time, and graduate in thesame length of time as their non-remediated peers. Research findings will help informengineering programs, university administrators, and other stakeholders regarding the role ofremedial education in engineering and whether it aids students from academically disadvantagedbackgrounds to pursue
Increasing Minority Presence within Academia through ContinuousTraining (IMPACT) mentoring program. The IMPACT program paired Black engineeringfaculty with primarily White emeriti faculty for career-focused mentorship, networking, andadvocacy. Mentees were primarily recruited from the Academic and Research LeadershipNetwork, a database of minority STEM faculty; the mentees mainly selected their mentors, butnone held a previous formal relationship, nor were any located at the same institution. Thementoring matches were based on the specified goal of the mentee, such as moving into adepartment chair role or seeking grant-writing support, but not disciplinary or demographicmarkers as is the traditional mentoring match rationale. Expectations were set
context. This paper describes a course derived fromthe Wright State model, which has evolved significantly over time. The course includes moderate-intensity active learning, with 1 hour of lecture, a 2-hour studio, and 2-hour lab each week. Dataon student perceptions and performance from the most recent offering of the course in Fall 2022are presented. A large number of students were batch enrolled into the course in summer 2022, butthen subsequently withdrew early. The students who dropped had lower math confidence, lowerself perceptions of science and math ability compared to their peers, and lower STEM identity,compared to students who remained in the course. Among students who earned overall coursegrades of D or F, the majority were taking
DeliverablesEach step of the design phase requires the completion of a team-based oral or written assignment.Additionally, the course requires individual assignments to fulfill program requirements in writing,peer evaluation and reflection on learning. Team-based assignments contribute 55% of the overallstudent grade, with individual assignments making up the remaining 45%. While assessment has beenidentified before as a challenge for studio models, particularly in assessing individual studentcontributions, each team and individual assignment is graded on a rubric developed for the capstonecourse as a whole, enabling consistent grading across both the traditional capstone students and thestudio students [12] [15, 16]. To ensure that students are
addition, students employed an ethical reasoningprocess to create a group consensus with their peers, supporting the overall goal of developing amore situated understanding of ethical decision-making.1. Introduction Engineers leverage a combination of skills, knowledge, and experiences to innovate andcreate technologies across domains. Through a micro-view, these technologies have the potentialto affect change by making processes more efficient or cost-effective. When taking a macroperspective, engineers can alter how society interacts with the world around them. Engineersmay work in a breadth of diverse fields, but ethical responsibility is a primary tenet thatunderlines professional engineering. When the result of engineering decision
themes were identified, the supporting text was then used to develop a deeperunderstanding of participant responses related to those themes. For example, some womenstudents described how their contributions are not always valued in team projects for theirengineering courses. These themes identified (Belonging and Climate, Diversity Imperative, andCOVID-19) through qualitative analysis were helpful in organizing the report and presenting the19 quantitative items in smaller, strategic groupings. The full extent of these groups can be foundin the larger report.Climate Study Report Writing and StructureTaking this mix of quantitative and qualitative data, the next step was to synthesize findings inthe form of a climate survey report to be submitted
conducted on how female and low-income students function in a cooperative,learner-based studio environment and advance understanding of the role different levels ofmentorship (peer, senior members, assistants, and faculty) play in the PWS model and how itimpacts the performance of female members of the cohorts. By working together in a team-basedenvironment, the PWS built strong connections among the PWS scholar cohort. The PWS isdeveloping well-rounded students who are afforded hands-on experiences, and the opportunity towork in multi-disciplinary team environments and gain exposure to real-life projects in computerscience, engineering, and technology. These experiences, combined with professionaldevelopment and mentorship, will enable scholars to
, technical support, and encouragement. • GiggleBot programming workshop. One ExCITE student volunteer demonstrated three GiggleBots [16] to the CS I students. Three CS I students and five ACM/ACM- W members participated. Among these five students, two were freshmen, and three were upperclassmen. The presenter demonstrated how to drive a GiggleBot with a pre-programmed Microbit [17] and then let the participants do the same. The students also plugged markers into the GiggleBots, to let the robots draw lines on the papers on the floor by moving. Then the students were divided into groups to write programs for the robots on the computers in the lab and then download their code to the robots to
criticism include forums where methods, ideas, assumptions, and reasoning can beevaluated and critiqued by the community. In the context of EER teams, these venues could beformal (e.g. an advisory board meeting or peer review process) or informal (e.g. a hallway con-versation or sidebar conversation during a meeting). They might be internal, only including groupmembers, or external to the group. The modes of communication in a venue may be spoken (e.g. ameeting or phone call) or written (e.g. an email or peer review). Additionally, the venue could havevaried degrees of collaboration involved in the critical activities (e.g. a team discussion regardingthe solution to a problem vs a team delegating tasks to be completed). We anticipate that
/a9WRjsG9SeE).The single short concept video approach is aligned with the new modality of receivinginformation, where students can either watch the video several times or skip it if they alreadyunderstand the topic. The learning glass represents a powerful tool that shows the instructortalking face-to-face writing on a glass board giving the sensation to the students as if they werein the same room (see figure 1), and the Solidwork animation with the problem solutions are avery effective representation of the problem (see figure 2), this later resource has been used onlyfor one term and no assessment on student perception has been done. a) Statics b) Dynamics Figure 1
and representative example problems would be a valuable learning tool. In a recentcourse assessment, students highlighted the necessity of frequent assessment: “I felt that my class should have allotted more time to complete individual board problems. We did complete a board problem as a class each lesson, but I felt that I was lost when it came time to complete lessons on my own” “I learned the most during the beam lab when [the instructor] had us go to the boards in groups and went to help each group work through the problems to completion. I learned a lot from my peers that way. Going to board by myself doesn't help at all if I don't know what I'm doing”Students also struggled differentiating
(FDP) showing their approved final designs to their peers. The FDP is done toprovide students with experience presenting formally to a large audience. It is not intended to bean opportunity for in-depth critical evaluation of designs; however, students are provided withinstructor and peer feedback on the quality and content of their presentation. The next keydeliverable in the second semester is the Acceptance Test Plan. Teams are expected to validatethe performance of their prototype against the project requirements and this is formalized in awritten test plan that is reviewed and approved by the Client.The latter half of the second semester includes the second and third internal design reviews, theProject Readiness Review (PRR) and the
difficulties with online writing tools” [7, p. 3].Computer Science faculty were surveyed in June 2020 by Bizot et al [8]. 450 faculty respondedto the survey which had been distributed to the Computing Research Association (CRA) and theACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) mailing lists. Thefaculty reported that they changed their pedagogical techniques after the move online. Beforemoving online, 250 faculty had used active learning in their classes. After moving online, 34.9%discontinued active learning, 43.4% made minor changes and 21.3% made significant changes.Collaborative projects and labs were also impacted by the move online. Of the 180 faculty whoused collaborative projects, 13.9% discontinued them, 71.7% made
develop the skills and writing habits to complete doctorate degrees in engineering. Across all of her research avenues, Dr. Matusovich has been a PI/Co-PI on 12 funded research projects including the NSF CAREER Award with her share of funding be ingnearly $2.3 million. She has co-authored 2 book chapters, 21 journal publications and more than 70 conference papers. She has won several Virginia Tech awards including a Dean’s Award for Outstanding New Faculty, an Outstanding Teacher Award and a Faculty Fellow Award. She holds a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Cornell University, an M.S. in Materials Science from the University of Connecticut and a Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Purdue University.Dr. Cheryl Carrico