instructorproctored the exams. When evidence was shared with the instructor, the response was disbelieffollowed by disgust. The instructor had received low student evaluations of teaching and had beenincreasingly disappointed in student attitudes in recent years. The instructor decided to stopteaching. The instructor was not an employee in the fall 2019 semester and did not want to pursuescholastic dishonesty charges. When asked for copies of the exams, the instructor said the examswere inadvertently thrown away in a recent cleaning of the office. The instructor destroyed theevidence. Hence the department could not pursue charges against any student. Upon reflection, thisfaculty member had taught for over 30 years and apparently never pursued a scholastic
assist in developing, implementing, and runningthese forms/surveys for you.Next StepsFall 2019 provided another opportunity to reflect on our program assessment process (see ourassessment schedule in Table 3). Based on our experience during the 2018-2019 cycle, wedecided to undertake the following adjustments in preparation for our Spring 2020 programassessment: 1. Instead of each individual faculty selecting an ACM CS2013 learning outcome to use as a PI for the student outcome, the department agreed to vote on a set of accepted PIs for each student outcome. The intent is for the faculty to select a PI from this department- approved set. The Assessment Committee will coordinate this PI selection process to ensure sufficient
limitations impact thefindings of our work. First, as has been mentioned, at this stage in the research, we haveexamined only a subset of our total dataset. As we describe in the future work section, this workwill inform further analyses.3 ResultsIn the preliminary analysis presented in this paper, 30 student survey responses were analyzedand a total of seven content features, one layout feature, and two benefits were identified in thesurvey results. The results presented in this paper categorizes the data gathered based on CodingFramework presented in Section 2.3. In addition, the conclusions drawn are based from thispreliminary analysis, and as such may not reflect complete student sentiments of support sheets.Future work will incorporate all 227
the seven principles ofgood feedback practice7. The quizzes 1) helped clarify what a good performance was, 2)facilitated the development of self-assessment (reflection) in learning, 3) delivered high qualityinformation to student about their learning, 4) encouraged teacher and peer dialogue aroundlearning, and 5) provided information that we could use to modify our teaching. The studioformat and flipped nature of the course were key to supporting these basic feedback principles.Experiment ResultsThe most significant effect of the latest method of flexible assessment was seen in its impact onthe final overall course grade and one of the final exams. Table 2 shows the lab and lecture finalexam averages from the previous (Spring & Fall 2018
infacilitating communication between stakeholders and for helping to achieve many importantgoals of the project. These personnel include Mr. Daniel Sullivan, the STEM-NSF Grant ProjectManager, Ms. Elaine Young, the NSF Grant Coordinator, Ms. Eileen Swiatkowski, SeniorGrants Specialist, and Ms. Kathryn Strang, Director of Compliance, Assessment and Research.The authors also wish to gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation(NSF), through the Division of Undergraduate Education DUE), which made this effort possibleunder DUE-1601487. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed inthis material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation.The authors
supported by the faculty as a good learning experiencein Intellectual Property management. The fact that this activity was initiated by the students reflects thesense of ownership developed by the students and their confidence in the long-term value of the design. 12The overall student experience was very positive with all participants recommending the introduction ofsuch projects in the regular instruction process. Students gained not only the skills, but the appreciationfor the skills needed to work together in a group to succeed in a project that encompassed manydisciplines. Student comment: “I believe projects such as this should be run
Conference, June 14, 2014,Indianapolis, IN, USA. 3. Next Generation Science Standards, http://www.nextgenscience.org/implementation, accessed on 12/10/2014. 4. F. C. Berry, P. S. DiPiazza and S. L. Sauer, “The future of electrical and computer engineering education," IEEETransaction on Education, Vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 467-476, 2003. 5. G. Gross, G.T. Heydt, P. Sauer P. and V. Vittal, “Some reflections on the status and trends in power engineeringeducation, IERE Workshop: The next generation of power engineers and researchers”, Montreal, Quebec, Canada,10 Oct. 2003. 6. G. Joós, “Training Future Power Engineers”, IEEE Power and Energy, Jan./Feb. 2005, pp 38-47. 7. D. Ray, and F. Wayno, “Collaboration to Facilitate Research and Education in a
learning and oftenchange their approach to studying for the class. Continued frequent exams let the student knowif the changes to their study habits are working or not. Since they are guided in ‘best practices’,the later exams often show a marked improvement, reinforcing the value of structured practiceand learning.The second step is grading appeals. Rather than providing a detailed breakdown of a student’serrors, minimal marking is used. Students are graded on the 0% or 100% scale. They mustreview their work (with the help of detailed solutions), identify their errors, identify the type oferror (conceptual or minor), and in the case of minor errors, rework the problem to obtain the80% credit on the rubric. This structured reflection allows
was supported with funding from the National Science Foundation. Any opinions,findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authorsand do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References[1] Arendale, D. (1997). SI (SI): Review of research concerning the effectiveness of SI from theUniversity of Missouri-Kansas City and other institutions from across the United States.[2] Dawson, P., van der Meer, J., Skalicky, J., & Cowley, K. (2014). “On the effectiveness of SI: Asystematic review of SI and peer-assisted study sessions literature between 2001 and 2010” Review ofEducational Research, 84 (4), 609–639.[3] Scott Steinbrink, Karinna M. Vernaza, Barry J. Brinkman
was above 4.0/5.0 across all topics in both manufacturingexcellence session and manufacturing quality excellence session [25]. That being said, averagescore for the non-destructive evaluation (NDE) module in Manufacturing Quality Excellencesession was slightly lower (approximately 3.75/5.0) than those for other modules. The lowerscore for NDE could be explained due to the larger amount and more technical nature of thelearning materials as reflected in the participant’s open-ended comments. In overall, the higherthan target (3.5/5.0) course evaluation scores demonstrated that the professional developmentsessions were able to meet course objectives in terms of renewing/enhancing participants’ HVMskills set.5. ConclusionsThe National Science
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology under GrantNo.1001814551. Any opinions, findings or conclusions expressed in this material are those ofthe authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Transportation.The authors are greatly thankful to the students who participated in this study.References[1] Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (Issue May).[2] National Work Zone Safety Information Clearinghouse. (2017). 2017 National Work Zone Fatal Crashes and Fatalities. Retrieved from https://www.workzonesafety.org/crash- information/work-zone-fatal-crashes-fatalities/#national[3] Brame, C., (2007). Active learning
specific system. Cache simulation tools provide support for diverse configurations ofthe system and help to capture the real world scenarios to ensure that the system performs at anoptimal level.We surveyed cache simulation studies to better understand the needs for cache simulation. Then,we designed numerous scenarios using different cache configuration and sizes to reflect thescalability. Keeping the focus on achieving maximum performance, cache associativity is alsoobserved and extensively studied to verify the gains in performance were made possible. Varioustypes of cache associativity were examined and their benefits and limitations are summarized. Wealso studies that the relationship between cache associativity and cache coherency. One
2019 Class 6 5 4Mean 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Questions #1 to #10Figure 7: Student Responses Comparison between 2018 Class and 2019 ClassAssessment Results:Based on the survey results presented in Table 7 and Figure 7, we have made a few keyobservations: Most students felt that the course project was a valuable experience. Majority concurred that the course project helped their understanding of the RC circuit responses and the 555 timer. However, a few students from the 2019 class noted that they would hope to have more lecture time to cover the 555 timer functionalities, as reflected
steps to address it by improving thesyllabus of their existing courses and adding new courses to their curriculum. In the currentpaper, author recommended introduction to the concept and calculations of four ECMs inEngineering Thermodynamics course. In addition, the author provided a step-by-step proceduremanual for a field trip to the university central utility plant, which is available in manyuniversities across the U.S. A paper-based SET survey was conducted to capture students’attitude regarding self-efficacy using a Likert-type scale from 1 to 5. Based on the SEToutcomes, “My overall knowledge of the subject matter has increased” received a 4.27 out of 5which reflects the effectiveness of the implemented teaching methods discussed
theability to pivot among programs each week. To take a closer look at student pivot patterns, weconstructed visual diagrams to represent student workflow. In this section, we show multipleworkflow diagrams to visually represent how students worked on their programmingassignments during various weeks. A key question is "What are some observed pivot patterns?"6.1 Analysis and procedureTo visually represent student workflow, we created GANTT charts for each student for everyweek in the quarter. A GANTT chart shows activities displayed against time. Each activity isrepresented by a bar; the position and length of the bar reflects the start date, duration and enddate of the activity [11]. We chose this representation since GANTT charts allow us to see
solution,the need for proper procedures such as mesh convergence and verification and validation, andthe benefit of techniques such as a sensitivity study. As an instructor, one can only hope that inaddition to students gaining technical skills in a finite element course, that they also gain acontextual understanding of how to properly employ this technique. While ethical use of finiteelement model is certainly a topic of great relevance, it is outside of the scope of this work.However, the point should be made that ethical decision making can assist with difficultproblems in cases where some outcomes may seem cheaper or easier.AssessmentStudents were provided an opportunity to reflect on the course learning goals identified in thecourse at the
information; (2) The design and execution of the two winning ideas: Cosmic Song and Dark Origin; (3) A reflection on the opportunities and challenges of running and participating in this project as an undergraduate research experience. We will share lessons learned from this project in terms of promoting creativeengineering opportunities for a K-12 audience and regarding empowering undergraduate studentsto play lead roles in aerospace engineering projects. Additionally, we will discuss detailedinformation, including schematics, of the two payloads.Introduction The title of this international contest was “Art in Space.” It was inspired by the rock bandOK Go’s music video “Upside Down and Inside Out,” which was filmed in
Raw Adjustednecessarily reflect true differences. SESSION N Grouping Mean Mean 19AM 104 81.09% 81.46% AThe final model resulted in an RSQ of 18AM 100 77.87% 79.12% A B49.09% and included SESSION, 18PM 85 76.79% 77.47% A BMAJ, LABSCORE, HWSCORE, and 19PM 85 73.57% 75.46
pertaining to female and minority hiring and participation. The unit of analysis is the transcript of each interview or focus group. Researchers will also calculate the extent of match between AM educators’ perceptions and AM standards/certifications as well as use established instruments to measure the extent to which the new professionals report entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial intentions [27-29].Sampling NoteRural NW Florida is highly diverse, with over 30% of residents reporting that they are black,Hispanic, or of multiple races; the enrollments of the participating state colleges reflect theircommunities. Because an intent of this project is to increase participation in AM education andcareers, the research team will reach out to
datawhich are elements of authentic learning. This pedagogy allows the students to relate the mathand science concepts to engineering and real-life use.The effectiveness of the approach was assessed using a quasi-experimental within-subjectresearch design. The intervention was a week-long professional development workshop forteachers (Figure 1a) followed by a week-long summer camp for middle school students (Figure1b). The teacher professional development workshop included elements of best practices [23] i.e.(a) Content focus, (b) Active learning, (c) Collaboration, (d) Use of models and modeling, (e)Coaching and expert support, (f) Feedback and reflection. The teachers learned the basics ofphysics of flight, aircraft flight controls and practiced
distributed understanding of the concepts was sought withcognizance to the difficulty that different members of the team would experience inunderstanding the new material. Finally, the positive reception of the company to the course andfeedback gave some insights as to the utility of the short course model, as well as someimprovements which could be made in developing more courses of a similar type. This shortcourse was a positive experience for all stakeholders and reflects an opportunity for engagementin the workplace.References[1] E. De Graaff and W. Ravesteijn, “Training complete engineers: Global enterprise andengineering,” European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 419–427, 2001.[2] National Academy of Engineering, The
and with organizations such as 4H programs that couldprovide important local support for students. In the final phase of our study, we plan to share thisinformation through participatory design workshops with key groups of community memberswho work with rural students.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under GrantNumber 1734834. 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.References[1] State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV), “The Virginia plan for higher education: Annual report for 2016 to the General Assembly of
entire process of curricula and project.Evaluation systemDifferent from the traditional simple book-exam testing method, the new evaluation systemfor each related course should score a student in the perspectives of comprehendingapplication of knowledge and the abilities of engineering practice. Because the eight coursesin this draft are interconnected through “handwriting robot” project, the realization of“handwriting robot” can reflect a part of students’ learning outcomes. The syntheticevaluation system consists of the usual-time performance (20%), final examination (30%)and achievement demonstration and result defense (50%), which applies to every course.Moreover, considering the difference in students’ abilities and encouraging students to
can to encourage students to become more independent learners.4.2 Independent learners and homeschooling practiceThere is evidence to suggest that the homeschooling lifestyle tends to impart independent learningskills to its students [9, 10], and that engineering freshmen coming from a homeschoolbackground are therefore more likely to take responsibility for their own learning [8]. This is onepossible reason why the homeschooled students from this study succeeded in engineering schoolat a higher rate than their equally mathematically equipped non-homeschooled peers.According to [8] and [11], some important characteristics of an independent learner are: • Critical reflection • Self-awareness (especially related to own learning
-orderresponses was c) associate this project with another project to optimize understanding. Perhaps thiswas because this level of association would require documentation and reflection on theperformance of the positive and negative aspects to capitalize on future projects, and we did notscaffold such reflection.Abstraction and modularization: The ideas included in this evaluation criterion were: a) to detectthe materials or tools necessary for the project, b) to identify the learning scenarios, and c) toacquire new knowledge and inspirations. In most cases, high-level responses are observed perhapsdue to the wide-spread knowledge of the technology used in the construction process and thescaffolded study of the basic parts of the subsystems (sensors
mentor-student interaction time.This is due to each student pair having a graduate student mentor for three of the six weeks, whichis reflected in the greater number of personnel involved in the six-week program (Figure 3D). Thebreakdowns in Figure 3 showcase the overall cost reduction of the three-week program incomparison to the six- and ten-week programs.Assessment of ProgramWhile the cost assessment determined the 3-week program optimized overall program costs,student learning outcome results were needed to compare the effectiveness of each program tojudge whether cost cutting measures were detrimental to the overall objectives. To determinewhether students learned the concepts taught throughout each iteration, pre- and post-surveys(included
EffortStudent effort is known to be a significant predictor of performance on low-stakes tests [22].During ESO testing, proctors observed that some students testing in-class clicked throughquestions toward the end of the test, reflecting decreasing effort. Results from the ESO showed acorrelation between time spent on the core test components and final core score, suggesting thatstudent effort did impact achievement.However, previous work on PIAAC engagement suggests that the proportion of disengagedrespondents from Canada with educational attainment greater than high school is less than 5%[30]. Only 4.2% of the students in this sample were filtered out because of low time spent ontest, which aligns with this previous evaluation of disengaged
a group of engineeringfaculty across the country and spearheaded by Ohio Northern University (ONU) “to moreaccurately reflect the ONU brand of the KEEN framework" and to allow more faculty to “feelcomfortable incorporating entrepreneurial content into their courses” [5]. As an expandedframework, eKSO contains 55 objectives, unlike KSO’s 18.EMLOAfter reviewing the KSO framework, the faculty at The Ohio State University sought to usebackward design to create a new set of learning objectives, the Entrepreneurial Mindset LearningObjectives (EMLO) that included more specific objectives and focused on integrating EM intothe curriculum throughout the different stages of a student’s college career. One of the uniqueaspects of this approach was the
supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1:3–31, 2005.[12] S. E. Harpe. How to analyze Likert and other rating scale data. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 7(6):836–850, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2015.08.001.[13] M. K. Hartwig and J. Dunlosky. Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19:126–134, 2012.[14] Charles Henderson and Kathleen A Harper. Quiz corrections: Improving learning by encouraging students to reflect on their mistakes. The physics teacher, 47(9):581–586, 2009.[15] G. Herman, K. Varghese, and C. Zilles. Second-chance testing course policies and student behavior. In Proceedings of the
establishing empathy as anecessary addition to the engineering field.Empathy is a component of emotional intelligence that is measurable by most assessments.Reimer makes the case that emotional intelligence, as measured by these scales, is reflective of aperson’s overall communication skills. As such, there may also be a link of these sameemotional intelligence scales to the engineering design process. The effective design processstarts with empathy for the customer as the priority [29].The EQi-2.0 reports 21 scores, which include 15 individual metrics. The individual metrics aregrouped into five composite scores and a total score. These scores set up the basis for thecomparison of the development of the student to their process of solving an open