Faculty of the Faculty Cluster Initiative’s Learning Sciences Cluster at the University of Central Florida. Her research focuses on measuring self-regulated learning across research and learning contexts, such as STEM classrooms.Prof. Hyoung Jin Cho, University of Central Florida Professor Hyoung Jin Cho is the Associate Chair of the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Central Florida. He coordinates two undergraduate programs – B. S. Mechanical Engineering and B. S. Aerospace Engineering. He has published over 130 peer-reviewed journal and proceeding papers. He has 12 and 6 patents granted in the U.S. and Korea, respectively, in the areas of sensors, microfluidic devices, and micro
]. Both face and contentvalidity search to decide the degree to which a construct is accurately translated intooperationalization. Face validity examines the operationalization at face value to determinewhether it is a good translation of the construct [26], while content validity examines theoperationalization compared to the construct’s relevant content area(s) (i.e., the appearance thatthe instrument measures what it is intended to measure) [27].Survey items were written by the first author and then reviewed and critiqued by various groups.The authors’ research lab group initially provided feedback on the survey questions’ clarity andreadability, and whether the items are relevant and right for measurement. This research groupbrings expertise
Tech University Virgil Orr Professor of Chemical Engineering Director of Biomedical and Chemical Engineering ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Improving First-Year Engineering Student Success with Targeted Financial Assistance, Supplemental Instruction, and Cohort Team BuildingAbstractThis complete research paper assesses the first-year implementation of an NSF-funded S-STEMeffort, the SUCCESS Scholars Program (SSP), established in the Fall of 2022 at Louisiana TechUniversity.Louisiana Tech University is a Carnegie High Research Activity University that hasapproximately 20% of its 7500 undergraduates as engineering majors, is geographicallydistanced
Universidade de S˜ao Paulo. Professor of Physics at Mau´a Institute of Technology, since 1994 and President of Teacher’s Academy at the same Institution.Dr. Nair Stem, IMT - Graduated at Physics (Bachelor) at IFUSP, Master at Electrical Engineering and Doctor at Electrical Engineering at EPUSP. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 Leveraging immersive environments in physics labs and flipped classrooms for engineering courses.This paper aims to explore the use of immersive (panoramic) video with hotspots as apre-class activity for an investigative physics laboratory on the topic of oblique launches,in conjunction with the flipped classroom methodology. The goal is to study
). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.[5] D. Yomtov, S. W. Plunkett, R. Efrat, and A. G. Marin, “Can peer mentors improve first-year experiences of university students?,” J. Coll. Stud. Retent. Res. Theory Pract., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 25-44, 2017.[6] V. Cornelius, L. Wood, and J. Lai, “Implementation and evaluation of a formal academic-peer-mentoring programme in higher education,” Active Learn. High. Educ., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 193-205, 2016.[7] J. Carragher and J. McGaughey, “The effectiveness of peer mentoring in promoting a positive transition to higher education for first-year undergraduate students: a mixed methods systematic review protocol,” Syst. Rev., vol. 5, pp. 1-9, 2016.[8] P. Collier, “Peer mentoring
factors that hidden curriculum stands on and use them to identify and understand themechanism of hidden curriculum. These key factors include emotions, self-efficacy, self-advocacy, and awareness [14], [15]. More specifically, Villanueva et al.’s model describes that anindividual recognizes hidden curriculum through hidden curriculum awareness, which isprocessed by emotions. Emotions are then regulated by self-efficacy, which ultimately sustainsand reinforces the individual’s self-advocacy. While Villanueva et al.’s conceptual model isfocused on the coping mechanism upon discovering hidden curriculum, our study usesVillanueva et al.’s work on identifying hidden curriculum in engineering classroom exams basedon the described mechanism.Examining
demographics are in Bolton [14] forthe early-career sample and Miskioğlu et al. [6] for the mid-to-late career sample. Allparticipants self-identified as women or men in an open-response text box.Data Collection is also described in detail in prior work [6], [14]. All interviews followed thesame previously tested protocol [1], [6], [14]. This protocol includes three main interviewsections: expertise, decision making, and intuition. In this paper, we are only interested in theintuition section of the interviews.Table 1 Pseudonyms categorized by years of experience with gender identity, racial/ethnicidentity, and degree discipline(s); tables adapted from Miskioglu et al. [6] and Bolton [14] Level of Reported Reported Years of
to be an important part of the life and activity of the class”. This definitionpresents SB as a unidimensional construct, which can be measured as a general SB.Alternatively, Freeman et al. [3] view SB as a multidimensional construct encompassing classbelonging, university belonging, professors’ pedagogical caring, and social acceptance,suggesting that measuring SB should be approached by asking questions that correspond to eachof these dimensions. Given the diversity of conceptual definitions of SB, it is reasonable toanticipate the presence of multiple measurement instruments for this construct. For example,Goodenow’s Psychological Sense of School Membership [PSSM] was created to measure ageneral SB, while William et al.’s Higher Education
ATTRIBUTES.The design attributes currently listed as typical potential constraints in the CSM are shown inTable 1. These attributes are not meant to serve as an exhaustive list, but as a convenient startingpoint for performing a constraint analysis for a given problem. Note that each source has anassociated code for ease of identification and reference during later analysis. TABLE 1: ATTRIBUTES IDENTIFIED AS TYPICAL CONSTRAINTS IDENTIFIED IN THE CSM, GROUPED BY SOURCE CLASSIFICATION AREA Code Attribute Code Attribute S-1
Education, Washington, DC: ASEE, 2012.6 See https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14602/nsf14602.htm7 Douglas, E., private communication, January 31, 2017.8 Jordan, S. and M. Lande, “Additive innovation in design thinking and making,” International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(3B), pp. 1438-1444, 2016.9 McKenna, A., N. Kellam, M. Lande, S. Brunhaver, S. Jordan, J. Bekki, A. Carberry, and J. London, “Instigating a Revolution of Additive Innovation: An Educational Ecosystem of Making and Risk Taking,” 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, LA, June 2016.10 Kellam, N., B. Coley, and A. Boklage, “Story of change—Using experience-based critical event narrative analysis to understand an engineering program’s
, and veteran undergraduates in engineering. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 The Methodological Promise of ‘Narrative Inquiry’ for Exploring Student Veteran and Service Member Experience as ‘People in Relation’AbstractStudent veterans and service members (SVSM) represent a significant, yet vastly underutilized,human resource for strengthening and diversifying the nation’s science, technology, engineering,and mathematics (STEM) workforce. It is estimated that, by the year 2020, over 5 million post9/11 service members will have transitioned out of the U. S. Armed Forces. Yet, despiteadvanced technical skills and training and access to unprecedented levels of educational benefits,today’s
Year Summer Experience (FYSE) program is a three-week residential summerorientation program focused on the development and strengthening of math-intensiveengineering problem solving skills. All new students offered admission to the School ofEngineering and students who applied to engineering but were instead admitted to the Divisionof Letters and Sciences (L&S) were invited to participate in the program. Recruitment andselection of participants is geared toward inclusion of women, racial/ethnic minorities, first-generation college students, and engineering admits with relatively weak mathematicspreparation. Approximately 40-60 first-year students participate in the program each summer.The participants are required to live in the provided
engineering ethics: Assessment of its influence on moral reasoning skills,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 29–34, 1998.[6] J. Henrich, S. J. Heine, and A. Norenzayan, “The Weirdest People in the World?,” Behav. Brain Sci., vol. 33, no. 2–3, pp. 61–83, 2010.[7] Q. Zhu, C. B. Zoltowski, M. K. Feister, P. M. Buzzanell, W. Oakes, and A. Mead, “The development of an instrument for assessing individual ethical decision-making in project-based design teams: Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods,” in Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2014.[8] R. I. Murrugarra and W. A. Wallace, “A Cross Cultural Comparison of Engineering Ethics Education
“representative of a dance” that was the larger project of change.Finally, speakers described elements of their team philosophy that helped them to buildcognitively complex, ‘real’ teams. They took time together to debrief difficulties and celebratesmall wins. It was crucial to bring a “generous spirit” to the work and be “comfy with mistakes.”Giving people the benefit of the doubt and showing willingness to learn from one another“lubricates a lot of conversations” and “ease[s] a lot of tensions.” Over time they developed anunderstanding of what decisions could be organic and what should be formalized, and learnedpatience with the human side of the change process. One described change projects as cross-country races, not track meets: We “don’t have to
, Germany, and was awarded M.S. and Ph.D. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2025 2025 ASEE Annual Conference Montreal, Quebec, Canada, June 22 - 25, 2025 Zhang, Z., Li., W., Shirvani, K., Chang., Y., Hung, Y., Y., Esche, S. K. Flipped Classroom and Collaborative Learning in Tool Design Education for Mechanical Engineering Technology Zhou Zhang, Wenhai Li, Khosro Shirvani, Yizhe Chang, Yue Hung, Sven K. EscheAbstractTraditional Tool Design courses often rely on passive lectures and individual assignments, whichcan limit engagement and creativity, particularly for Mechanical
disabled students.To broaden participation and increase diversity in engineering and computing majors in 4-yearuniversities and colleges, bridge and success programs (also called intervention programs in someliterature) such as summer bridge, engineering scholar, and bootcamp have been used to supportstudents’ college transition and retention [1-8]. Some were initially created with federal fundingsupport from U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) Scholarships in Science, Engineering,Technology, and Mathematics Program (S-STEM) and Louis Stokes Alliances for MinorityParticipation Program (LSAMP) [9] and institutionalized later. Both S-STEM Scholars programand LSAMP Scholars program not only provide financial support to student participants but
“representative of a dance” that was the larger project of change.Finally, speakers described elements of their team philosophy that helped them to buildcognitively complex, ‘real’ teams. They took time together to debrief difficulties and celebratesmall wins. It was crucial to bring a “generous spirit” to the work and be “comfy with mistakes.”Giving people the benefit of the doubt and showing willingness to learn from one another“lubricates a lot of conversations” and “ease[s] a lot of tensions.” Over time they developed anunderstanding of what decisions could be organic and what should be formalized, and learnedpatience with the human side of the change process. One described change projects as cross-country races, not track meets: We “don’t have to
discrimination encountered byuniversity-educated engineering professionals in their work communities. The study alsoexplores the linkages between age discrimination and equity climate inengineering/technology workplaces in the context of a Nordic welfare state, Finland.Masculine cultures and discrimination in engineering/technology workplacesRecent studies affirm that many engineering/technology workplaces are, to this day,characterized by culture(s) that favor men and masculinity [4–8]. As Cheryan and colleagues[1] describe: “In STEM fields, a masculine culture is a social and structural environment thatconfers a greater sense of belonging and ability to succeed to men than women”. Masculinecultures in technology workplaces have been described as
Inspection Training Group 1 (w/o Adaptive Mechanism) Group 2 (w/ Adaptive Mechanism) Participants 22 6 Samples 82 72 Statistic Time Taken (s) Hits Percentage Time Taken (s) Hits Percentage x) Mean (¯ 68.93 78 % 48.94 83 % Standard Deviation (σ) 34.93 17 % 23.89 14 % Minimum Value (xmin ) 27.00 25 % 10.00 50 % Maximum Value (xmax ) 208.00 100
project intended to assist two-year college faculty andadministrators to prepare proposals for the National Science Foundation Scholarships in Science,Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (S-STEM) Program. S-STEM proposals are expectedto be built on a foundation of deep needs analyses specific to the targeted population of studentsin STEM disciplines. Based on needs assessment, programs can then focus on implementingappropriate interventions and supports that will be most effective in improving the retention andcompletion of their students. Guidelines for streamlining the acquisition and organization ofcritical elements of student needs analyses can be useful for two-year college faculty andadministrators to develop NSF S-STEM proposals and
research at the graduate level. However, studying creativity at thegraduate level is essential because creativity is required to generate new knowledge throughresearch. This study seeks to address the gap in knowledge about graduate-level creativitythrough a thematic analysis of five semi-structured interviews with engineering graduatestudents. These interviews are part of a larger mixed-methods research project with the goal ofcharacterizing the creative climate of graduate-level engineering education. In the interviews, weasked participants about their creative endeavors, how they define creativity, and theirperceptions of creativity within engineering. We used Hunter et al.’s (2005) creative climatedimensions as a theoretical framework to
benefits ofinterventions. It is no surprise that a supportive learning environment would bring about student successand that historically underrepresented groups experience additional need for this support.Moreover, diversifying the gender and ethnic representation of ECpE graduates would yield amore diverse engineering work force more equipped to meet the challenges of tomorrow.Diverse teams are beneficial for an amalgam of moral, equitable, and innovative reasonsincluding improved problem solving and improved work outcomes [17]. This representation anddiversification is pertinent for professional and ethical advancement. Especially as the softwareand engineering (S&E) workforce continues to grow 3% faster than total employment growth
is illustrated in this paper, students still have low tomedium self-concept and self-efficacy. Since high self-efficacy and self-concept predict higherachievement [7], encouraging these in students who are traditionally underrepresented isimportant and something that is not accomplished simply by having high science motivations,value of science, and learning motivations and habits in the areas of science and engineering.Thus, additional effort must be made to help students connect what they are learning to theirability to perform engineering and science skills (self-efficacy) and their identity in STEM (self-concept). References:[1] J. P. Preston, S. Wiebe, M. Gabriel, A. McAuley, B. Campbell
, 2017. 3. Choy, S., Nontraditional Undergraduates. 2002, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: Washington, DC. 4. Rodriguez, A., M. Carnasciali, S. Ciston, M. Whitson, and V. Berendt (2016, Sept) Stress and Response Patterns in Adult Engineering Student within Higher Education. Paper presented at 2016 ASEE Rocky Mountain Section Conference, Cedar City, UT. https://www.suu.edu/rms2016/ 5. Seymour, E. & Hewitt, N. H. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press 6. Carnasciali, M., & Thompson, A. E., & Thomas, T. J. (2013, June), Factors influencing students' choice of engineering major. Paper presented at
assigning members to teams using instructor-specified criteria.,” Advances in Engineering Education, vol. 2 (1), pp.1-28, 2010.[3] N. F. Jackson and S. Magun-Jackson, "Improve Your Strengths and Manage Your Weaknesses: Using the StrengthsFinder Profile in Team Development," in ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, Nashville, 2003.[4] B. Read-Daily, K. M. DeGoede, and S. L.Zimmerman, “Gallup StrengthsFinder in Engineering, ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition” in ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2018.
each year were surveyed. Participants were also asked for their CEE preferencessuch as which types of courses (technical, management, EH&S, legal, other) they would prefermore of and what was their preferred delivery format (face to face, hybrid, online). Thisinformation should be invaluable to those developing curricula and designing and deliveringcontinuing professional development for engineers.IntroductionThe need for CEE has been well-documented [1]. Continuing education is critical for workingengineers because of the breadth of processes and equipment they design and use and because ofrapid changes in technology [2]. For example, plant engineers take courses to learn how tooperate different types of equipment specific to their
Mentoring in Promoting Student Success and Retention." International Journal of Human and Society (IJHS) 4, no. 1 pp. 110-123, 2024. [3]. Chandrasekera, T., Hosseini, Z., Jayadas, A. and Boorady, L.M., PeTe (Peer Teaching) Mentors: How near peer mentoring (NPM) affects academic success and retention in design education. Innovative Higher Education, 49(5), pp.975-991, 2024. [4]. Gehreke, L., Schilling, H. and Kauffeld, S., Effectiveness of peer mentoring in the study entry phase: A systematic review. Review of Education, 12(1), p.e3462, 2024. [5]. Ntombela, B., Ramabodu, M.S. and Moloi, K., 2025. Strategies for Empowering and Retaining Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
department with plans for development as a capstone orindependent study in connection with research in the thin films lab.References[1] CHIPS and Science Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act[2] Semiconductor Industry Association, “2024 State of the US Semiconductor Industry”,https://www.semiconductors.org/2024-state-of-the-u-s-semiconductor-industry/, 2024. [Accessed13 January 2025].[3] M. Di Ventra, S. Evoy, E., and J. R. Heflin (eds.), Introduction to Nanoscale Science andTechnology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Springer New York, NY, 2004.[4] D. M. Topasna, “Strategies and Methods for Improving Understanding of Advanced Conceptsin Introductory Nanotechnology Course”, Proc. New Perspectives in Science Education, 11thedition
: A feminist poststructural lens on stories of women engineering faculty of color. Management Communications Quarterly, 29(3), 440–457.Garrett, S. D., Williams, M. S., & Carr, A. M. (2023). Finding their way: Exploring the experiences of tenured Black women faculty. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 16(5), 527–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000213Goldberg, C. E., & Baldwin, R. G. (2018). Win-win: Benefits of expanding retirement options and increasing the engagement of retired faculty and staff. New Directions for Higher Education, 182, 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20281Kelly, B. T., & Winkle-Wagner, R. (2017). Finding a voice in predominantly white institutions: A