30% Progress as measured by weekly write-ups and presentations 30% Skills homework 25% Final “lessons learned” presentation and video reportAssessment of the course and continuous quality improvementA thorough evaluation of the course is imperative to understanding what strategies worked best.A pre-assessment questionnaire will be developed to first gauge the student’s familiarity with thecourse topics at the beginning of the semester. This evaluation will be in addition to the regularcourse evaluation process for all college of engineering courses. Students will be asked in theend of semester questionnaire specifically if they felt that the course met each of its specifiedgoals. Additionally, we plan to implement a peer review
, promotes collaboration, inspires generosity, and encourages life-longlearning.In this paper, we present the framework of the program focusing on the structure of the summerworkshop (MadE Leadership Mentoring Program) and the introductory course (EngineeringLeadership I: Theory and Practice). The MadE Leadership Mentoring Program is a summerworkshop that allowed students to conduct individual introspection while developing the coreidentity of the program and the leader peer group. Engineering Leadership I permitted theexploration into how leadership theory can inform and direct the way leadership is practiced anda platform for feedback during the semester as matters pertain to leading first-year students. Thecourse is constructed to advance our
., 2010, “Measuring engineering design self-efficacy,” Journal ofEngineering Education, 99, pp. 71-79. Page 26.1074.11 AppendixThe rubric used for peer evaluation to determine individual contributions is shown below. Peer Rating of Team Members: ENGR 350 In the table below, write down the names of the individual members of the group in which you worked for the project as part of ENGR 350 this semester. Rate your participation and the participation of each group member. You have to rate the degree to which each member fulfilled his
for suchcourses is that related topics are typically perceived by students especially at the undergraduatelevel as uninteresting and irrelevant, while it is difficult to bring the “real-world” experience tothe classroom.This paper summarizes the author’s experiences in developing and teaching for the first time aSoftware Specifications course to the newly established Software Engineering (SE) degreeprogram at Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) in Spring 2014. The SE program belongs inan Engineering College which emphasizes undergraduate education (there is no graduate degreeoffered). The Software Specifications course is a required course for all SE students at FGCU. Itincludes topics such as Eliciting, Writing, and Testing Requirements
Page 26.1149.2difficulties, the process of analyzing ethnographic data is often one of the most difficult steps forresearchers to navigate during the research process. Much of this confusion comes from attemptsto demonstrate an understanding of what was actually observed.In their seminal book, “Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes,” Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw2 discusstechniques for writing effective fieldnotes in a variety of observational settings. They state thatfieldnotes can often be written from multiple perspectives. Using a first-person point of view,researchers are able to describe specifically what they observe or experience during the datacollection process. This is particularly useful when the researcher is a member of the group s/heis
beyond graduate school. Such training must include multi-facetedprofessional development (e.g., grant writing, public speaking, and publishing research), as wellas social dynamics such as networking within the STEM community.10Logically, the challenges posed by the lack of financial resources and lack of peer and facultymentorship are cumulative from high school through graduate school and beyond. URM studentsare more likely to complete their baccalaureate educations with higher debt burdens than theirmajority peers, thus the prospect of a long slog to a STEM doctorate with the likely prospect offurther training at the postdoctoral level makes the alternative of a career in medicine or a STEMjob in industry more appealing. Meanwhile, the
activities of the module include the Values Affirmation Intervention as a writingexercise, and the Difference-Education Intervention in the form of a student panel.The Values Affirmation Intervention (VAI) was first pioneered by Cohen, et al. in 2006 tonarrow the academic achievement gap between racial and ethnic minority middle school students(Blacks and Hispanics) and their white peers. This writing activity has been proven to promoteself-integrity and self-worth, which can help with better performance on challenging tasks19. TheVAI contains a broad list of values not directly related to academic performance that have beenvalidated by past research20. To complete the activity, students are instructed to circle two orthree values from a list that
department’s non-thesis Master’s degree students. The learning objectives for thiscourse are for students to: 1. Learn the principles of project management. 2. Apply project management tools and processes to solve Electrical and Computer Engineering problems as done in industry. 3. Emphasize and practice teamwork. 4. Practice organizational, communication, technical writing and presentation skills. Page 26.1263.3Overview of ME 5194: Applied Project Management and System EngineeringIn this course, students learn a variety of applied systems engineering and project managementtopics. The course focuses on giving students a
curriculum.2-5 Ingeneral, women and underrepresented minority students are less likely to persist in engineering.6Reports also indicate that the persistence of women and underrepresented minority students inengineering may be adversely affected to a greater degree by their experiences within theengineering climate than their majority male counterparts. Here “climate” indicates perceptions ofstudent belonging and interpersonal interactions between student peers, students and faculty (bothin and out of the classroom), and individual compatibility with pedagogical styles in theirclasses.2,7 An undesirable climate also has the greatest impact on student retention in the first yearsof engineering study.8 Most students who leave engineering do so within
frameworks in education. Section 3 describes the conceptual model used tointegrate the framework. Section 4 discusses the proposed framework. Section 5 describes theframework validation process. Finally section 6 concludes with a summary of the researchfindings and future work.2. Literature ReviewCurrent trends in higher education make more complex the learning process for the learners andinstructors. This complexity demands the commitment of the learners in a dynamic role in theknowledge acquisition process. Every learner is motivated to enter in proactive participationexperience through a variety of processes, alternating from self-directed learning to groupdiscussion, to peer teaching, to teacher guidance4. A useful way to understand and
in engineering and engineering technologyan opportunity to participate in a new approach to the recruitment, retention, education, andplacement of academically talented and financially needy students. The SPIRIT (ScholarshipInitiative via Recruitment, Innovation, and Transformation) Scholars program establishes atransformative learning environment that fosters the development of professional skills andincreased technical competency through interdisciplinary project-based learning (PBL),undergraduate research, peer-to-peer mentorship, and focused institutional support services.1-8WCU is classified as a regional comprehensive masters-granting university and was awarded theCarnegie Community Engagement classification in 2008.9
interest, whileexercising creativity and communication skills.The creative fiction assignment was conceived upon realizing that generating ethical dilemmaswith “grey areas” and no obvious “right answer” required a nuanced level of ethicalunderstanding. At that point, instructors turned the tables on the students and provided historicalcase studies for reflection during class sessions, but asked the students, in small groups, to createtheir own fictional “case studies” as a culminating assignment. Students were initiallyencouraged to write a 1500 word creative short story, but other genres were approved. Theassignment has been implemented with 95 students over two years.MethodsInstitution and Ethics CurriculumThe authors are both assistant
Page 26.569.2week lecture held in an auditorium seating over 350 students. Despite the best efforts of facultyto engage students in this format, there was little to no meaningful interaction between studentand instructor. The redesign transformed the course into a lecture/discussion style, which waslaunched in Fall 2014. The lecture was still held in a 350-seat auditorium. However, thediscussions section broke the students out into groups of 20 students or less. Upper levelengineering students acting as peer facilitators led the discussion sections. In this study, thecourse transformation included structure and content of discussion sections, training andexperience of peer facilitators, and assessment of the course.Students who are unsure of
: first-year seminars and experiences,7-12 writing intensive courses,13collaborative assignments and projects,14, 15 undergraduate research,16, 17 diversity/globallearning,18, 19 and learning communities.20-22 In additions to these practices, some authors havereported other interventions designed to improve retention, including peer and facultymentoring,23, 24 bridge or college preparatory programs,24-26 and mandatory math tutoring.27In this study we explore the effectiveness of a variation of a learning community – namely aliving-learning community (LLC) of first-year engineering students that was started at ouruniversity in the fall of 2013 and is now in its second year. Loosely defined, an LLC is a groupof students who live together in a dorm
creative endeavors, partialknowledge students have about new content, and negotiation of social roles, responsibilities andpositions all present communication challenges as students engage in design projects8. Moreover,complications abound because the various contingencies are interdependent (e.g., knowledge ofcontent constrains solution options). Effective engineering design learning depends onstructuring a predictable environment in which students feel safe to explore and create withinbounded constraints. Incorporating classroom structures to facilitate productive peer-to-peercommunication is one part of creating such an environment.Research in learning and motivation presents multiple perspectives for educators and researchersto draw from as
, some of her articles have been published in important journals of her field of expertise and her article entitled ”1-N- alkyl-3 methykimidazolium ionic liquids as neat lubricant additives in steel-aluminum contacts” has been named one of the TOP TEN CITED articles published in the area in the last five years (2010). Dr. Iglesias has extensive experience working on tribology and has published 14 peer-reviewed articles and more than 20 conference proceedings in the area.Ms. Kate N. Leipold, Rochester Institute of Technology (COE) Ms. Kate Leipold has a M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Rochester Institute of Technology. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Rochester Institute of
electrical engineering, computer science and mathematics byapplying evidence-based teaching strategies—student-centered problem-based teaching(SC-PBT), example-based teaching, and just-in-time teaching (JITT); (3) incorporating classroom andlaboratory activities that require active student engagement, conceptual understanding, criticalthinking, and problem-solving; and (4) Employing model students to lead SupplementaryInstruction (SI) courses with evidence-based peer-to-peer learning strategies. The studentassessment data indicated the effectiveness of the evidence-based instructional practices, the SIpeer-to-peer learning strategies, as well as existing engagement challenges. In addition, positivefeedback was obtained from the student survey data
smiles upon receiving credibleinformation about this potential employee’s preparation for engineering professional work. Theinterviewer then focuses discussion on performances behind the graduate’s scores and on jobresponsibilities that either fit the individual or that may be particularly challenging for this prospectiveemployee. The interview concludes with both parties confident of the interview’s effectiveness and finaloutcome.What is different about this picture? What gives the employer and prospective employee confidence in thevalue of information on the score sheet? In this case, scores were based on evidence from multiplesources: instructor, peers, and outside evaluators. Scores were earned in a capstone design project thatsimulated
this form of instruction is becoming commonplace in K-12education. A site with similar resources, but oriented toward higher education is “OLT:Flipped Classroom Project” from the University of Queensland. It has case studies inseveral disciplines, including Engineering Design. It has synopses of various ways to useclass time, including case studies, peer learning, problem-based learning and project-basedlearning. It gives some advice on how to measure learning gains. Flip It! Consulting hasa blog with posts on various aspects of flipping that will be useful to educators in manydisciplines. A notable collection of links and references to other resources is provided byRobert Talbert at Grand Valley State University. His intention is to turn it
question; no student's question was professor-rated above a 4.The common problem seen was an inability to write correct and precise English.Keywords: Crowdsourcing, rating, authoring, student-made content, web-native content,interactive content, programming, computer science, digital learning, digitally-enhancededucation, online learning.IntroductionTextbooks are giving way to online interactive material[15][20][23]. Interactive materialbenefits student learning with immediate feedback and higher levels of engagement[8],which may be a better match to a modern student's learning style.However, interactive material is hard to make, whether authoring a new textbook orconverting an existing textbook. One possibility is to have students help create
. The learning communities mitigated risk for faculty.Across all of our programs, there were signs that learning community participation reduced the Page 26.1128.12risks that faculty associate with instructional change. Peer discussion and feedback helped earlyadopters of change to feel more secure; as one member of the University of WashingtonEngineering Writing Brown Bag remarked, “It was helpful just hearing some confirmation thatmy ideas for teaching weren’t crazy”. And the exchange of teaching narratives and resourcesamong the community helped all community members to see instructional change as worthwhile,and within faculty’s
have assessed various programand participant activities with an emphasis on participant communication skills (oral, written,and graphical modes) throughout various phases of the summer research experience. Tools usedfor assessment included: learning style and communication style surveys; incremental and finalperception surveys; review of weekly journal entries; peer reviews; review of communication-focused assignments (i.e., mid-program and final oral presentations, poster presentations, andvoicemail reports); and documentation of experimental procedures and results in a summaryreport. Several activities in the program involved the use of different learning styles such asgraphics-only and rapid, oral-only communication exercises. The learning
) line-by-line coding for cross-comparison, 3) identifying common experiencesfor initial themes, 4) supplementary review of transcripts for confirmation of themes anddevelopment of a proposed model/initial theory, and 5) memo-writing to acknowledge the ideasand thoughts related to the context of the experiences of the participants. While we have listedthe steps in grounded theory here, this was a non-linear process that involved comparingstatements within and between interviews and checking one’s ideas with the data.5Throughout the interviewing and analysis process, Julie and Stacey met regularly to discussinterpretations, salient themes and theoretical gaps in understanding. Periodic peer debriefingwith the Stephanie helped hone the wording of
with PH382U Introduction to Nanoscience andNanotechnology, followed by BI372U Nanotechnology, Society and Sustainability, andECE383U Nanotechnology: Modeling & Simulation, (where the “U” suffixes indicate GEeligibility,) but each course can stand alone. These courses are tailored to support interactionbetween STE (science, technology and engineering) and non-STE students, who will take them Page 26.1182.2together. Two function as writing intensive courses (WIC), and there are no college-levelprerequisites for any of them. There is also a supporting follow-on 2-credit NanotechnologyLaboratory course, (currently listed as ECE410/510.)General
skills, with light coverage of actual problem solving anddesign strategies or heuristics. As the first truly comprehensive chemical engineering course, thecurrent content is a blend of a review of principles and some concepts of integration of skills. Itis still delivered in a lecture-driven, teacher-centered format, and the communications componentis heavily reliant on rather lengthy written reports. Our student teams do benefit from beingmentored by program alumni working in industry, which provides an element of exposure to thereal world, but overall the course may be summarized as a bit of creative effort followed by agreat deal of computation and technical writing. Therefore, we revitalized the course with thegoal to ● focus more
Américas Puebla (UDLAP).Problems vary in different ways, so different kinds of problems call on different conceptions andskills 2-4. Based on those differences among problems, different kinds of food engineeringproblems were developed such as decision-making, troubleshooting/diagnosis, and designproblems. For seven PSLEs' assignments an Argumentation Rubric (adapted from Jonassen2),was utilized to assess students' (n=81) argumentation skills, particularly adequacy of premises,credibility of premises, organization of arguments, quality of conclusions (claims), and writing(content/ideas). Four evaluators assessed student papers and videos. Furthermore, the mostcommon method for assessing argumentation, protocol analysis of student essays or
LaboratoryAbstractThis paper describes a construction materials laboratory that interfaces what are often lessdesirable activities for engineering students (i.e., writing, presenting) with physical experimentsand calculations. The paper’s primary objective is to present the recent incorporation of panelevaluations to expose students to presenting and to emphasize competition. Writing exerciseshave been part of the laboratory for years, and are described in some detail. Emphasis is on oralcommunication. As might be expected, student responses to these panels have varied widely,though overall assessments to date seem to indicate value added to the laboratory experience.1.0 Introduction and BackgroundTechnical communication (oral and written) is a formidable
.) • Writing Consultant (CLEAR) 4910 15 to 30 3 • Oral Presentation Consultant (CLEAR)Original Instructor Team Model within the Professional Skills SpineAs initially conceived, each of the three courses utilized an instructional team to organize,facilitate and delivery instruction, and provide feedback to the students. Table 2 shows typicalclass sizes, the number of times that the class has been offered in an academic year, and theinstructor team in each of the courses. The instructor teams and the courses were specificallydesigned to integrate with the Communications, Leadership, Ethics, and Research (CLEAR)Program in the College of Engineering at University of Utah.In the original model, the lead instructor was a
their responseswith their peers in a group setting and write down their responses.The instructor then shows the students a framework using an additional scenario (odorsemanating from a sewer). The instructor explains how the solution would involve not only atechnical solution but also a consideration of the 4 Ps. The students are then asked to re-writetheir questions with the 4 Ps in mind. After the activity the students were asked to write downwhat they learned and what surprised them about this activity. These three scenarios are thenrevisited by the students at the end of the semester after they have learned the technicalsolutions.In this presentation, I will discuss the students’ responses before and after the framework wasdiscussed and at
. Observations were made duringclass time, in the last months of the students’ first semester in the program. Using Jonassen’s9seven steps of ill-defined problem solutions to classify the observations and analyze howsuccessfully peer contributions are made by each student, researchers are able to follow howstudents collaborate, organize themselves, and share experiences to conduct their design tasks.Also, one of the authors of this study, who was one of the course instructors, shares his thoughtson the experience of teaching this course for students with varying backgrounds and interests.This paper approaches multidisciplinary problem solving through the lens of socialconstructivism. In this sense researchers assumed that students learn from sharing