Oral Report 2 Lab 3 Stats Exam Due Draft 3 Due Draft Rvw 3 Final Report 3 Due Debrief + Writing Week 3 Do Lab 4 Oral Report 4 Lab 5 Workshop Due Draft 5 Due Draft Rvw 5 s Final Report 5 Due Week 4 Do Lab 6 Oral Report 6 Lab 7 Debrief Due Final Report 7 Due Week 5 Do Lab 8 Oral Report 8 Lab 9 Oral Briefing 9Students are further divided into sub-groups or “houses”, two of which follow theMonday/Wednesday schedule
coding and categorization procedure, a sampling of studentdefinitions and the assigned codes/categories are shown in Table 3. It is important to note that asingle definition may be coded into multiple categories depending on the specific phrases itincludes. As previously stated, the newly declared and senior design students’ responses to theadditional open-ended questions were not analyzed directly; instead, these responses providedcontext for discussion of the associated student population definition of BME.Table 2. Specific codes and organizing categories which emerged from qualitative coding ofstudent definitions of BME (italic text lists the words or phrases identified during in vivocoding) Category Code(s
students that consistently ratelow and others that consistently rate high. Additional analysis of groups of students in the upper andlower thirds or quartiles will be conducted in the future as part of our ongoing studies. Similarly, in astudy that clustered engineering students based on quantitative measure of non-cognitive factors,including engineering identity and belongingness, over 40% of the participants did not fit into clusters(Scheidt, Senkpeil, Chen, Godwin, and Berger, 2018). In Scheidt et al.’s study, engineering identity andbelongingness were 2 of just 5 factors (out of about 20 total factors analyzed) that drew distinctionsbetween clusters; in other words, engineering identity and belongingness are two of the most variedaffective
children go aboutsupporting their children 's engineering learning—especially given the upswing in the number ofchildren being homeschooled in the U.S. over the past decade [1] [2], which is expected tosteadily grow in the future. Thus, in this study we aim to investigate the role a homeschoolparent plays in their child’s engineering learning. Literature review In the last decade computers have become less of a cutting-edge technology and more ofa commonality in every household. The shift in technology from exciting innovation to pertinenttools requires more than the ability to use computers for work. In fact, it is becomingincreasingly pertinent for children to think like computer scientists and
and what response they receivedfrom their audience(s).The student writing projects were analyzed using discourse analysis 12 and multimodal analysis30,31 in order to examine how the students enacted positions through roles and relationships visa vithe reader, and the extent to which they were successful in their positioning (RQ1).We considered criteria for successful positioning in multiple ways. First, we asked ourselveswhether the authors actually positioned themselves as engineering researchers or engineers -what were the strategies they use, and did they appropriately signal membership in thatcommunity. For instance, scientists are expected to use the language of uncertainty and to avoidoverstating their claims when discussing the
Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 223–231, 2004.[6] S. Freeman et al., “Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 111, no. 23, pp. 8410–8415, Jun. 2014.[7] K. A. Smith, S. D. Sheppard, D. W. Johnson, and R. T. Johnson, “Pedagogies of engagement: classroom-based practices,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 87–101, Jan. 2005.[8] K. Sheridan, E. R. Halverson, B. Litts, L. Brahms, L. Jacobs-Priebe, and T. Owens, “Learning in the Making: A Comparative Case Study of Three Makerspaces,” Harv. Educ. Rev., vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 505–531, Dec. 2014.[9] E. C. Hilton, C. R. Forest, and J. S. Linsey, “Slaying Dragons
free of charge. The following is a more detaileddescription of the project requirements: o Fabricated object – Make a themed object from scratch. Usually this will be part of your puzzle, but they can also be hiding places and objects of interest in the room. For examples: Puzzle boxes, a small chest of drawers, the apparatus used to play your puzzle, or theme appropriate furniture (still needs to be portable). This object should be small enough for one person to carry it without assistance. o 3D printed object – Using Solidworks to make the object, each team will 3D print a small piece(s) used in their puzzle and/or fabricated object. Examples: Three different colors of numbered keys, a
completely different adhesive with a differentspecification (Table 5).Socially Situated ActivitiesAs shown in Table 6 in the Appendix, we identified six socially situated activities. Similar to theevaluative frameworks, we found that all of the socially situated activities we identified wereused by engineers from both disciplines. For example, these activities include troubleshootingroot cause(s) of failure and multimodal communication as shown in Figure 2.In discerning relationships between the three layers of literacy practices (i.e., genres,frameworks, and socially situated activities) shown in Figure 2, we noticed two things. First, thegenres that an engineer chose to engage with were mediated by the interpretive or evaluativeframework they were
assessment feedback in student learning”, J. Studies in Higher Education, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 53–64, 2002. [5] Epstein Educational Enterprises. (2019). “IF-AT by Epstein Educational Enterprises”, [Online]. Available: http://www.epsteineducation.com/. [Accessed Jan. 7, 2019]. [6] S. H. Cotner, B. A. Fall, S. M. Wick, J. D. Walker, and P. M. Baepler, “Rapid Feedback Assessment Methods: Can We Improve Engagement and Preparation for Exams in Large-enrollment Courses?”, J.Science Education and Technology, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 437–443, Oct. 2008. [7] B. R. Cook and A. Babon, “Active learning through online quizzes: better learning and less (busy) work”, J.Geography in Higher Education, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 24–38, Jan. 2017. [8] S
Paper ID #25277Visibly Random Grouping Applied to First-Semester EngineeringDr. Kathleen A. Harper, Ohio State University Kathleen A. Harper is a senior lecturer in the Department of Engineering Education at The Ohio State University. She received her M. S. in physics and B. S. in electrical engineering and applied physics from Case Western Reserve University, and her Ph. D. in physics from The Ohio State University. She has been on the staff of Ohio State’s University Center for the Advancement of Teaching, in addition to teaching in both the physics and engineering education departments. She is currently a member of the
: • Course(s) enrolled • Employment during university enrollment, • Factors leading students to not pursue their project as a startup, and • Suggested measures for increasing the rate of startup formation from course projects3. ResultsThe study’s three hypotheses were assessed using the interviews and the coded data. On average,each of the 16 participants provided 2.2 reasons for not launching their project as a startup. 3.1. Hypothesis 1Hypothesis 1 was that students do not continue with their projects because they cannot take timeaway from the paying jobs that are supporting their education. The data suggest that this is true.As shown in Fig. 1, students most frequently mentioned lack of time as a factor discouragingpursuing a
3.00 L E A D E R S Average Normalized Ind Avg Wk 1 4.25 4.25 4.00 4.25 4.25 4.00 4.00 4.14 0.90 Tm Avg Wk 1 4.62 4.62 4.56 4.62 4.62 4.56 4.56 4.60 1.00 Ind Avg Wk 5 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 1.10 Tm Avg Wk 5 4.53 4.67 4.60 4.53 4.47 4.53 4.53 4.55 1.00 Ind Avg Wk 1 Tm Avg Wk 1 Ind Avg Wk 5 Tm Avg Wk 5 Figure 2: Student ‘D’ Leadership AssessmentThis positive improvement in
University B (Blind-review)’s learningmanagement system. Papers in each section are milestone works in that discipline and span a fewdecades of development of theory and practice. Each week students are assigned to read on averagetwo to three papers that will be referred the most during the next lecture.Even though theoretical in nature, practice, and observation is a very important component of thiscourse. The equivalent of laboratory exercises in undergraduate classes, the purpose of practiceand observation is to perform simple experiments in order to verify theoretical calculations andpoint out their limitations and some trends. The course is offered as 3 lecture hours per week andno laboratory hours, which is traditional for graduate courses
community by influencingABET criteria, and by encouraging the need for additional academic requirements as aprerequisite for licensure, and hence professional practice, by NCEES, NSPE and the NationalAcademy of Engineering (NAE).In response to the release of the CE-BOK1, Policy 465 was changed accordingly in 2004:“ASCE supports the attainment of a body of knowledge for entry into the practice of civilengineering at the professional level.” The policy was again refined in 2007 to make it clear thatfulfillment of the CE-BOK “requires additional education beyond the bachelor’s degree forpractice of civil engineering at the professional practice,” although no mention was made of whatspecific advanced academic degree(s) or alternate pathways would be
) μ σTechnology plays an important role in solving society's problems 3.29 0.77Engineers make more money than most other professionals 3.23 0.76My parent(s) would disapprove if I chose a major other than 1.5 0.81engineeringEngineers have contributed greatly to fixing problems in the 3.51 0.73worldEngineers are well paid 3.3 0.74My parent(s) want me to be an engineer 1.86 0.98An engineering degree will guarantee me a job when I graduate 3.32 0.81A faculty member, academic advisor, teaching assistant, or other 1.89 1.04university affiliated person has
experiment(s) were clear to 2 5 2.67 1.11 1.22 me at all time. 29 I have had many difficulties with the server and 1 4 2.5 0.96 0.92 technical re- VISIR. strictions 30 The response time of the system was adequate. 3 5 4 0.82 0.67 31 I found it difficult to find time to carry out the ex- 1 4 2.67 1.11 1.22 periments allocated. 32 VISIR worked without any problems. 3 4 3.5 0.5 0.25In addition to the closed questions presented in Table 1, the students were asked to
interpersonal behaviours of leadership for early-career engineers,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. In Press, 2019.[4] R. Agarwal, C. . Angst, and M. Magni, “The performance impacts of coaching: A multilevel analysis using hierarchical linear modeling,” Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag., vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 2110–2134, 2009.[5] L. Ratiu, O. A. David, and A. Baban, “Developing Managerial Skills Through Coaching: Efficacy of a Cognitive-Behavioral Coaching Program,” J. Ration. - Emotive Cogn. - Behav. Ther., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 244–266, 2016.[6] R. G. Hamlin, A. D. Ellinger, and R. S. Beattie, “Coaching at the heart of managerial effectiveness: A cross-cultural study of managerial behaviours,” Hum. Resour. Dev. Int., vol. 9
doctoral level to developtheir communication skills are relatively lacking. Furthermore, the basic realities of doctoralprograms make it difficult for students to make use of available resources to help them improvetheir writing and oral competencies.This research paper presents results of an exploratory survey of Ph.D. students and identifiesseveral communication-related needs that should be addressed in their programs to enable themto function as independent researchers. The ability to communicate effectively supportsengineering Ph.D.’s ability to fully participate in the many communication-related aspects oftheir scholarly community such as the exchange of ideas, informal and formal collaborations,and collegial interactions. They need
Limited, 06 2015, pp. 243–250. [3] C. Zilles, R. T. Deloatch, J. Bailey, B. B. Khattar, W. Fagen, C. Heeren, D. Mussulman, and M. West, “Computerized testing: A vision and initial experiences,” in 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, no. 10.18260/p.23726. Seattle, Washington: ASEE Conferences, June 2015, https://peer.asee.org/23726. [4] R. F. DeMara, N. Khoshavi, S. D. Pyle, J. Edison, R. Hartshorne, B. Chen, and M. Georgiopoulos, “Redesigning computer engineering gateway courses using a novel remediation hierarchy,” in 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, no. 10.18260/p.26063. New Orleans, Louisiana: ASEE Conferences, June 2016, https://peer.asee.org/26063. [5] B. Chen, M. West, and C. Zilles, “How much
). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101(3), 486-505.[2] Deniz, H., Yesilyurt, E., Newman, J. S., & Kaya, E., (in press). Towards Defining Nature of Engineering in the Next Generation Science Standards Era. Critical Issues in STEM Education.[3] Hartman, B., & Bell, R. L. (2017, June), Teaching the Nature of Engineering in K-12 Science Education: A Delphi Study (Fundamental) Paper presented at 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio. https://peer.asee.org/28927[4] Karataş, F. Ö., Bodner, G. M., & Unal, S. (2016). First-year engineering students' views of the nature of engineering: implications for engineering programmes. European Journal of
stakeholder needs.In spring 2017, Polak served as Executive in Residence in the Division of Engineering, Designand Society at Colorado School of Mines to guide faculty and staff on how to incorporate enduser information into routine design problem definition and solution processes. Today, thiscourse, which exposes students to both user empathy and stakeholder engagement [19], has thefollowing learning objectives: 1. Identify, breakdown, and define open-ended problem(s). 2. Research the context and background of problems and solutions, through a variety of scholarly and authoritative sources. 3. Design solutions through cycle of testing, refining, iterating, and feedback. 4. Equitably contribute to team efforts from start to end on a
," Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 343-351, 2004.5. M. A. Holsapple, D. D. Carpenter, J. A. Sutkus, C. J. Finelli and T. S. Harding, "Framing Faculty and Student Discrepancies in Engineering Ethics Education Delivery," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 169-186, 2012.6. C. J. Finelli, M. A. Holsapple, E. Ra, R. M. Bielby, B. A. Burt, D. D. Carpenter, T. S. Harding and J. A. Sutkus, "An Assessment of Engineering Students' Curricular and Co-Curricular Experiences and Their Ethical Development," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 469-494, 2012.7. A. Van den Broeck, M. Vansteenkiste, H. De Witte, B. Soenens and W. Lens, "Capturing Autonomy, Competence, and
theprinciples of electrostatic propulsion, a different device known as an electrospray thruster may beused instead. Electrospray thrusters are significantly simpler to make and, although the operationis somewhat different to gridded ion and Hall thrusters, the basic principles of electrostaticpropulsion can be accurately demonstrated with the electrospray system.Electrospray thrusters are not a new technology, being first developed in the 1960’s [1]. Initiallythey were not popular due to low thrust levels and high voltages required. The emergence ofmicro- and nano- satellite technologies has seen a resurgence in interest in electrospray systemsas there are more avenues for their use and improvements in technology have dropped therequired voltages [2,3
otherprograms. Students were assessed by the faculty and external mentors during the course of theprogram. Students also performed self-assessments of the development of their personalleadership qualities and the overall worth of the program.While actual execution of the project was done in a cross-functional team, each engineeringstudent was asked to identify how they were developing their leadership skills within theirproject. Specifically, they were asked to provide their personal narrative to • Explain his/her vision of the project and why it was appropriate to undertake • Describe what information he/she would be responsible for gathering and the communication strategy required • Describe which task(s) you he/she would lead in
dimensionsubgroups at each peer rating event. Table 3 Self-rating and Peer-rating Across Dimension (Convergence) ANOVA Analysis Intervention Peer Difference P-value Effect Size Difference P-value Effect Size Review Mean (Cohen's d) Dispersion (Cohen' s d) Time CD = 0 1 -0.5175 = 22 1 -0.4292 = 22 2 -0.00952 0.9098 .0287 .005837 .8835 .0309CD >= 22 3 0.02424 0.7729 .0041
. Gursimran Singh Walia, North Dakota State University Gursimran S. Walia is an associate professor of Computer Science at North Dakota State University. His main research interests include empirical software engineering, software engineering education, human factors in software engineering, and software quality. He is a member of the IEEE Computer Society. Contact him at gursimran.walia@ndsu.edu c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Experiences Using a Cyber Learning Environment in CS1 ClassroomsAbstractThe Software Engineering and Programming Cyber Learning Environment (SEP-CyLE) is aweb-based platform to supplement standard course materials in CS1, CS2, software engineering,and