.6. Acknowledgments This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under GrantNo. 1504030. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. Photos in Figures 2 and 3 are courtesy of Adafruit.com.Bibliography[1]. S. A. Ambrose et al., How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. Jossey-Bass, 2010.[2]. C. J. Atman, et al., Enabling Engineering Student Success: The Final Report for the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education, 2010.[3]. S. Sheppard, et al., Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field. Jossey
administrative pathways 2.50 2.00 3.33Note: The results are reported as an average on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 =agree; 4 = strongly agree).ReferencesBerk, R. A., Berg, J., Mortimer, R., Walton-Moss, B., & Yeo, T. P. (2005). Measuring the effectiveness of faculty mentoring relationships. Academic Medicine, 80(1), 66-71.Blackwell, J. E. (1989). Mentoring: An action strategy for increasing minority faculty. Academe, 75, 8-14.Cawyer, C. S., Simonds, C., & Davis, S. (2002). Mentoring to facilitate socialization: The case of the new faculty member. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(2), 225-242.Fowler, E. J. (2009). Survey research methods
data on design processes. In thesubsequent year, the data collected through the DEFT system will be used to develop apedagogical framework and a class efficacy evaluation framework for engineering design.References[1] C.L. Dym, A.M. Agogino, O. Eris, D.D. Frey, and L.J. Leifer, "Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning", J. Eng. Educ., vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 103-120, Jan. 2005.[2] S. R. Daly, R. S. Adams and G. M. Bodner, "What Does it Mean to Design? A Qualitative Investigation of Design Professionals' Experiences," J. Eng. Educ., vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 187- 219, Apr. 2012.[3] J. Ball and T.C. Ormerod, “Structured opportunistic processing design: a critical discussion,”. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., vol.43 no.1, pp.131—151
least to each outcome,followed by students in other STEM fields, with non-STEM students attributing the highestperceived gains from their leadership role(s).Students across the board felt their leadership role provided the greatest benefit in their ability towork effectively with others, with only a slight difference between non-STEM and other STEMstudents (1.7%) and a much larger difference between non-STEM and engineering students(13.3%). Students felt their leadership roles contributed to understanding concepts in their majorsthe least, ranging from less than one-third among engineering students to slightly more than halfof non-STEM students. One of the starkest differences was with regard to becoming a leaderoutside of college. While more
flip their classes. Whatstarted out as a faculty development program designed for local STEM faculty quickly expandedto include faculty around the country and the world, across a wide variety of disciplines and K-12teachers as well. The program included three modules – backwards design applied to the flippedclass [1], creating online materials (video lectures), and active learning strategies for the face-to-face classroom. These modules were taught in a variety of different ways for different audiencesincluding in-person workshops, flipped semi-in person workshops, and completely online massiveopen online course (MOOC)s. The online MOOCs are now taught each semester by our Center forTeaching and Learning Excellence through Canvas.Net.We
century.AcknowledgementsThis work was funded by a National Science Foundation EEC CAREER grant (1554057). Anyopinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of theauthor and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] M. C. Thursby, “The Importance of Engineering: Education, Employment, and Innovation,” The Bridge, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 5–10, 2014.[2] J. Miller, “The Science and Engineering Workforce: Realizing Americas Potential,” Natl. Sci. Board Natl. Sci. Found. Rep. NSB, pp. 03–69, 2003.[3] D. E. Chubin, G. S. May, and E. L. Babco, “Diversifying the engineering workforce,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 73–86, 2005.[4] W. Wulf, “Diversity in Engineering,” The Bridge
, 2017.[12] D. R. Simmons, Y. Ye, M. W. Ohland, and K. Garahan, “Understanding Students’ Incentives for and Barriers to Out-of-Class Participation: Profile of Civil Engineering Student Engagement,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, vol. 144, no. 2, p. 04017015, 2018.[13] National Research Council, Learning science in informal environments: people, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009.[14] D. R. Simmons, N. A. Clegorne, and T. Woods-Wells, “Leadership Paradigms in Construction: Critical Review to Inform Research and Practice,” Journal of Management in Engineering, vol. 33, no. 4, p. 02517001, 2017.[15] D. E. Chubin, G. S. May, and E. L. Babco, “Diversifying the
anddrive toward improving subsequent iterations of the software.Bibliography 1. S. Tegen, Growing a Wind Workforce: The National Wind Energy Skills Assessment Report (Poster). No. NREL/PO-5000-61251. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO., 2014. 2. “Wind Vision: A New Era for Wind Power in the United States,” https://energy.gov/eere/wind/maps/wind-vision, 2015 (accessed January 2017). 3. AWEA Operation and Maintenance Recommended Practices, http://www.awea.org/Issues/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=4266, 2013. 4. D. Billing, "Teaching for Transfer of Core/Key Skills in Higher Education: Cognitive Skills," Higher education 53.4 (2007): 483-516. 5. E. Lamos, M. Simon, and M. J. Waits, "A Sharper Focus on
balls.Engineering design in scientific inquiryThe class was oriented towards developing a scientific model; our task was to explain, or model,the energy in the Gaussian Gun system. As instructor, there was no explicit requirement thatstudents produce any artifact or engage in design as part of the work. That is, our focus as a classwas in developing a scientific explanation. The design was emergent from this, rather than arequirement in itself for the course.Based on the above work that the students did, we pose the following questions regarding designin scientific inquiry: 1. For each group, how did their particular design challenges emerge? 2. What role did their designed artifact(s) play in their inquiry? 3. In what ways did their design mirror
toinvestigate what could have gone “wrong” and “why”. This practice truly allowed students toexperience the entire scientific process from solid theoretical reasoning obtained from virtuallaboratories, to designing their own activities, to initial observations, and to follow-on activitiesbased on the results of earlier activities. As a consequence, combined virtual and physical hands-on activities greatly helped students to explore inquiry-based organic solar cell projects withenhanced reasoning, problem solving, and communication skills. Overall, students not onlyenjoyed this course but also appreciated the importance of collaborative learning.AcknowledgementThis work is supported by NSF TUES (1244707, 1244079) and NSF S-STEM SoLEAP program(1355678
students’motivation. It may be that students require more than a single 40-minute lecture to becomemotivated to learn about a subject; however, the fact that 45% of the students in this study didreport being more motivated to learn about nanotechnology suggests that even a short lecture canhave a meaningful effect.AcknowledgmentThe support by NSF through Grant No. EEC- 1446097 is greatly acknowledged.References[1] Dyehouse, M. A., Heidi, A. D.-D., Bennett, D. E., Imbrie, P. K., “Development of an Instrument to MeasureUndergraduates’ Nanotechnology Awareness, Exposure, Motivation, and Knowledge”, Journal of Science Educationand Technology, v. 17, pg. 500- 510, 2008.[2] Kim, Y.-R., Lee, E. J., Park, S. H., Kwon, H. J., An, S. S. A., Son, S. W., Seo, Y. R., Pie
was that more and flowery does not help, but in fact hinders. Page 26.552.10 I realized how simple yet effective CE writing is. The thing that impressed me most today was how poor my grammer [sic] and editing skills are. I think the biggest challenge for me in writing for CE will be to ignore the temptation to sound fancy and smart. The information that made the biggest impression on me was how P.E.’s make use of I, you, we in their writings. I realized I make the same mistakes that other people do. I think the biggest challenge will be staying consistent in
, Upper Saddle River, NJ.[4] Barrett, S. F., LeFevre, E. W., Steadman, J. W., Tietjen, J. S., White,K. R., and Whitman, D. L., 2010, Using the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) Examination as an Outcomes Assessment Tool, National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, Seneca, SC.[5] Streveler, R. A., Geist, M. R., Ammerman, R. F., Sulzbach, C. S., Miller, R. L., Olds, B. M., and Nelson, M. A., 2006, “Identifying and Investigating Difficult Concepts in Engineering Mechanics and Electrical Circuits,” Proceedings of the 2006 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Chicago, IL.[6] Cornwell, P. J., 2000, “Dynamics Evolution – Change or Design,” Proceedings of the 2000 ASEE Annual Conference
, "Breaking the chemical and engineering barriers to lignocellulosic biofuels: next generation hydrocarbon biorefineries," Washington, 2008. Page 26.423.104. Naik, S., V.V. Goud, P.K. Rout, and A.K. Dalai, "Production of first and second generation biofuels: A comprehensive review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 14, pp. 578-597, 2010.5. Damartzis, T. and A. Zabaniotou, "Thermochemical conversion of biomass to second generation biofuels through integrated process design--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 15, pp. 366- 378, 2011.6. Wang, L., C.L. Weller, D.D. Jones, and M.A
Community College Completion Rates. Center onInternational Education Benchmarking: Learning from the World’s High Performing Education Systems.http://www.ncee.org/2013/05/statistic-of-the-month-comparing-community-college-completion-rates/)3. Olson, S. and D.G. Riordan. (2012) Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates withdegrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Report to the President. Executive Office of thePresident, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology: Washington, DC, USA.4. Leggett-Robinson, P., Mooring, S. and Villa, B. (2015) A 3+8 Model of Undergraduate Research for CommunityCollege STEM Majors. The Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 44, No. 4, March/April, 2015.5
of the semesterwhen the test was administered. Also, since the goal was to check the applicability of the rubricto assess engineering problem solving skills, we avoided problems that were more complex andrequired more steps. Those complex multi-step problems are currently being analyzed and theirresults are not included in this paper.The four questions analyzed and included in this paper were:Question 3 (equation of a line): A model rocket is fired in a vertical plane and the velocity v(t)is measured as shown in the following figure: V(t) [m/s] T [s] 34.3 0.5 19.6 2.0The velocity satisfies
Page 23.837.9#0836041 and #1226325References1. Hattie, J, and Timperly, H., (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Res., 77 (1), 81–112.2. Schute, V. J., (2008) Focus on Formative Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153-189.3. Streveler, R. A., Litzinger, T. A., Miller, R. L., & Steif, P. S. (2008). Learning conceptual knowledge in the engineering sciences: Overview and future research directions. J. of Engineering Education, 97(3), 279–294.4. Vygotsky, L. (1962) Thought and Language, T. E. Hanfmann & G. Vaka (Eds.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.5. Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D. & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. National Academy Press
, S.L., Lusth, J.C, Kotru, S. (2011). Creativity in an Introductory Engineering Course, Proceedings of the 2011 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Vancouver, Canada.4. Veltman, T., Rosehart, W., Eggermont, M., Onen, D. (2011). Evaluation and Analysis of Freshman Design Courses in Engineering, Proceedings of the 2011 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Vancouver, Canada.5. Dieter, G.E, Schmidt, L.C. (2009). Engineering Design, 4th edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.6. Vargas Hernandez, N., Kremer, G., Linsey, J., Schmidt, L. (2010). Systematic Ideation Curriculum Effectiveness Investigation & Deployment to Enhance Design Learning
support of thisproject (Award ID 1138235).References1. Mukhopadhyay, S.M. Nanoscale Multi-functional Materials: Science & Applications, Wiley, 2011.2. Roco, M.C. J. Nanopart. Res. 2011, 13, 427-445.3. Kim, J. Y.; Voznyy, O.; Zhitomirsky, D.; and Sargent,E.H. 25th Anniversary Article: Colloidal Quantum Dot Materials and Devices: A Quarter-Century of Advances, Adv. Mater. 2013, 25, 4986–50104. Gao, X.; Cui, Y.; Levenson, R.M.; Chung, L.W.K.; Nie, S. In vivo cancer targeting and imaging with semiconductor quantum dots, Nature Biotechnology. 2004, 22(8), 969-9765. Jones, A.; Verlinden, N.; Quimby, R. Optical properties of quantum dots: An undergraduate Physics Laboratory, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-042607
i) solder (130 um, 1.01 mm).Images were acquired with a Zeiss EVO-50 scanning electron microscope. Page 23.258.10References: 1. Pelesko, J., Self Assembly: The Science of Things That Put Themselves Together, Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2007. 2. Eaton, P. and West, P., Atomic Force Microscopy, Oxford University Press, 2010. 3. Whitesides, G. and Grzybowski, B. “Self-Assembly at All Scales”, Science, 2002, 295, 2418- 2421. 4. Palmer, L. and Stupp, S. “Molecular Self-Assembly into One-Dimensional Nanostructures”, Accounts of Chemical Research, 2008, 41, 1674-1684. 5. Park, S.; Lim, J. H.; Chung, S. W.; Mirkin
of a Solar- Harvesting Circuit for Batteryless Embedded Syatems,” IEEE Trans. Circuits and Systems, vol. 56, pp.2519-2528, Nov 2009.8. Hirak Patangia, “Assisted Night Vision for Motorists in Highway Construction Zones: Phase II,” www. Mackblackwell/MBTC2064.9. K. Shukla, S. Sampath and K. Vijayamohanan, “Electrochemical supercapacitors: Energy storage beyond batteries”, General Articles.10. Marin S. Halper, James C. Ellenbogen, “Supercapacitors: A Brief Overview”, MITRE McLean, Virginia, March 2006.11. H. Patangia, “Amplitude Division Multiplexing Scheme in Analog Signal Processing”, in Proc. IEEE Int. Midwest Symp. Circuits & Systems, August 2005, Cincinnati, Ohio12. H. Patangia and D. Gregory
-Loy, and L. E. Rogers, “Recognizing chilliness: How schemas of inequality shape views of culture and climate in work environments,” Am. J. Cult. Sociol., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 125–160, Feb. 2018, doi: 10.1057/s41290-016-0019-1.[6] M. P. S. Mousavi et al., “Stress and Mental Health in Graduate School: How Student Empowerment Creates Lasting Change,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 95, no. 11, pp. 1939–1946, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00188.[7] K. G. Wilkins-Yel et al., “Understanding the impact of personal challenges and advisor support on stem persistence among graduate women of color.,” J. Divers. High. Educ., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 97–110, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1037/dhe0000236.[8] B. Bergmann and J. Schaeppi, “A Data-Driven
. University of California, Santa Barbara Jaman Mohit Texas Tech University Montana Montez Texas Tech University Alyson Garcia Midwestern UniversityAcknowledgement:This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.(1930037). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to
. Yoon, M.G. Evans, J. Strobel. “Validation of the Teaching Engineering Self- Efficacy Scale for K-12 Teachers: A Structural Modeling Approach.” Journal of Engineering Education 103(3), 2014. 10. S.Y. Yoon, M.G. Evans, and J. Strobel, J. “Development of the Teaching Engineering Self-Efficacy Scale (TESS) for K-12 Teachers.” ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 2012. 11. M.H. Dembo and S. Gibson. “Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy: An Important Factor in School Improvement.” The Elementary School Journal 86(2), 1985. 12. R. Hammack and T. Ivey. “Examining Elementary Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Engineering Teacher Efficacy.” School Science and Mathematics 117(1-2), 2017.13. D
, Judith Albee, Peter Anttila, Judith Haataja, Kanak Nanavati, Kelly Steelman, and Charles Wallace. Breaking barriers to digital literacy: an intergenerational social-cognitive approach. In Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pages 239–244, 2016. [4] Shreya Kumar, Leo C Ureel, Harriet King, and Charles Wallace. Lessons from our elders: identifying obstacles to digital literacy through direct engagement. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on pervasive technologies related to assistive environments, pages 1–8, 2013. [5] Kelly S Steelman, Kay L Tislar, Leo C Ureel, and Charles Wallace. Eliciting best practices in digital literacy tutoring: A cognitive
is another key strategyfor career and life design.Moreover, universities interested in implementing career design initiatives may considerdeveloping assessment tools to compare early career outcomes data from career design studentswith data collected from first destination surveys of the schools’ overall STEM graduates.Progress in implementing career design comes through communication betweenproject facilitators and student participants. Project leaders also need to create a culture allowingreflections and participation from all students and not just the individuals who thrive online.Acknowledgment: This work has been supported by the National Science Foundation underaward EEC-2038309.References 1. Kahn, S., & Ginther, D. (2017). Women
perspectives with and without adaptive lessons in the flippedclassroom.2. Related LiteratureGiven differences in students’ knowledge and understanding, adaptive learning platforms can beused to provide content, resources, and customized learning paths to offer personalized learningat scale (Munoz et al., 2022). Daugherty et al.’s recent literature review identified the increasingpopularity of adaptive learning and the need for more research to better establish its directconnection to improved learning (Daugherty et al., 2022). Another systematic review identifiedthe increasing popularity of adaptive learning technology alongside few empirical researchstudies on it (Munoz et al., 2022). As an example of an implementation, adaptive learningcourseware
analyzedalong with data from the other survey instruments to explore the relationships between cognitive,motivational, and emotional processes on self-efficacy as it relates to academic persistence.6. AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.2204892. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation.7. References[1] H. N. Haron and A. M. Shaharoun, "Self-regulated learning, students' understanding and performance in engineering statics," presented at the IEEE
-impact educational practices. Peer Review, 10(4), 30-31.4. Brail, S. (2016). Quantifying the Value of Service-Learning: A Comparison of Grade Achievement Between Service-Learning and Non-Service-Learning Students. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 28(2), 148-1575. Oakes, W., Duffy, J., Jacobius, T., Linos, P., Lord, S., Schultz, W. W., & Smith, A. (2002, November). Service-learning in engineering. In the 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education (Vol. 2, pp. F3A-F3A). IEEE.6. Naik, S.M., Bandi, S., & Mahajan, H (2020). Introducing service learning to undergraduate engineering students through EPICS. Procedia Computer Science 172, pp. 688-695.7. Savoca, M., & Bishop, K.E. (2020). Academic
Page 24.1182.5This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grantnumber EEC-1024628.References1. Guglielmino, L. M., Development of the self-directed learning readiness scale, Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 38, No. 6467A, 1978.2. Hoban J. D., Lawson S. R., Mazmanian P. E., Best A. M., and Seibel H. R., “The Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale: a factor analysis study,” Med Educ, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 370–379, 2005.3. J. Barsch, Barsch Learning Style Inventory, New York: Academic Therapy Publications, 1996.4. R. M. Felder and L. K. Silverman, "Learning and teaching styles in engineering education," Engr. Education, Vol. 78, No. 7