5.1 medium 3 19 15.0 easy 1,3 10 8.2 medium 1 20 7.8 easy 3,5To create the set of instructional activities, we simulated a set of 20 learning activities that had anexpected time-on-task between 5 and 15 minutes. In addition, the tasks were defined as easy,medium, or difficult to reflect the diverse student proficiencies, as well as the skill(s) the learningtask covered. The details of the learning activities can be found in Table 1.ResultsIn the student performance simulation, only 49 students demonstrated mastery on all five skills.Both algorithms correctly did not assign any learning activities to these students. For
[1] J. Cuseo, “‘Decided,’ ‘Undecided,’ and ‘In Transition’: Implications for AcademicAdvisement, Career Counseling, and Student Retention,” in Improving the First Year of College,Psychology Press, 2005, pp. 36–56. [Online]. Available:http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781410611864-7[2] C. A. Malgwi, M. A. Howe, and P. A. Burnaby, “Influences on Students’ Choice of CollegeMajor,” Journal of Education for Business, vol. 80, no. 5, pp. 275–282, May 2005, doi:10.3200/joeb.80.5.275-282.[3] D. Ghosh, S. Harford, H. Darabi, and J. Amos, “Board 315: Improving Students’ Decision-Making Behavior in Choosing an Engineering Pathway,” in ASEE Annual Conference andExposition, Conference Proceedings, Baltimore, United States, Jun. 2023.[4] Tran, Ashley Y
Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). 2023. Diversity and STEM: Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities 2023. Special Report NSF 23-315. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/wmpdhttps://ncses.nsf.gov/wmpd.[4] Chen, X. (2013). STEM Attrition: College Students' Paths into and out of STEM Fields. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2014-001. National Center for Education Statistics.[5] S. R. Herrera and C. A. Medina, "Adelante: Social Mobility at a Hispanic-Serving Institution," Journal of Latinos and Education, pp. 1-18, 2023, doi: 10.1080/15348431.2023.2228603.[6] S. Mendoza, A. N. Armbrister, and A. F. Abraído-Lanza, "Are you better off? Perceptions of
adapting and developing course activities and structurefocused on fostering student design activity engagement. Expansion to different engineeringfields and further considerations of professional engineering engagement will be needed toexpand our understanding of motivation in design activity engagement and reach more fields andsettings.Acknowledgements:This work was supported through funding by the National Science Foundation (Awards No.2138019, No. 2138106 and No. 2514040). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions orrecommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
, Whiteness, and Education. Routledge, 2009.[2] P. Freire, Pedagogy of the oppressed. Routledge, 1973.[3] D. A. Chen, J. A. Mejia, and S. Breslin, “Navigating equity work in engineering: contradicting messages encountered by minority faculty,” Digital Creativity, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 329–344, Oct. 2019.[4] G. Bachelard, Épistémologie: Textes choisis par Dominique Lecourt. 1980.[5] P. Bourdieu, “The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason,” Soc. Sci. Inf. , vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 19–47, Dec. 1975.[6] D. Swartz, Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. University of Chicago Press, 2012.[7] J. A. Mejia, D. A. Chen, O. Dalrymple, and S. M. Lord, “Revealing the Invisible
-generations (first-gen), low socioeconomic status (SES) students, ruralstudents, and more, even though they intend to support those students. Recruitment is critical toreach and convince underserved students to enroll in those programs to broaden participation inengineering. Limited literature focuses on recruitment practices and barriers in those programs[2-3]. Difficulties were reported in identifying effective recruitment strategies. The BCSER PIled an engineering summer bridge program formerly funded by NSF Scholarships in ScienceTechnology Engineering and Math (S-STEM) program and observed the recruitment challengesafter federal grant phased out in her own bridge program and other similar ones that lack federalfunding. The purpose of this BCSER
class.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.2306156. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation.ReferencesBandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Information Age Publishing; pp. 307–337.Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Brown, S. & Burnham, J. (2012). Engineering Student's
politicalconstraints remains a crucial area for growth as the program evolves. Despite its success, theprogram is no longer funded, reflecting a shift in the NSF’s stated priorities away from explicitlyjustice-oriented initiatives. As a team deeply committed to equity and systemic change, wedisagree with this shift and remain steadfast in our belief in the necessity of programs like JEDI.AcknowledgmentThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under AwardNumber 2318338. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions, or recommendations expressed inthis material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation.References[1] B. Geisinger and D. R. Raman, “Why they leave
supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.2215408 and 2215788. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressedin this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation.References[1] P. Freire, Education for critical consciousness, vol. 1. Bloomsbury Publishing, 1973.[2] P. Gurin, B. R. A. Nagda, and X. Zúñiga, Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and research on intergroup dialogue. Russell Sage Foundation, 2013. Accessed: Jul. 22, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OAlRAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq= gurin+intergroup+dialogue&ots=hTQB0UuxyT&sig
, Özkan DS, Strom HC, editors. Where Do We Meet?Understanding Conference Participation in a Department of Engineering Education. 2019 ASEE AnnualConference & Exposition; 2019.4. Krause SJ, Middleton JA, Judson E, Ernzen J, Beeley KR, Chen Y-C, editors. Factors impactingretention and success of undergraduate engineering students. 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition;2015.5. Vicente S. Exploring Programmatic Elements, Learning, and Sense of Belonging in an EngineeringInternship Program2024.6. Fluker C, Perez-Felkner L, McCoy K, editors. Students’ Perceptions of their Engineering IdentityDevelopment and REU Summer Program Experiences: An Equity-Centered Analysis. 2022 ASEE AnnualConference & Exposition; 2022.
results, and performing a similar analysis with the full text all of theincluded articles.Acknowledgment and NSF DisclaimerThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under GrantNumbers (2201792, 2201793, 2201794, and 2201795). Any opinions, findings, and conclusionsor recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the National Science FoundationReferences[1] C. M. Massey and A. Stephens, Eds., Scaling and sustaining Pre-K-12 STEM education innovations: Systemic challenges, systemic responses. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2024. doi: 10.17226/27950.[2] J. Lachal, A. Revah-Levy, M. Orri, and M. R. Moro, “Metasynthesis: An
faculty. Changingthe narrative from a necessity of high stress in engineering to one of well-being will create aninclusive academic environment where all can thrive. Challenging engineering’s culture ofhardship may also help recruit and retain UES and change public opinions of engineering.AcknowledgementsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant#2400607 and #2400608. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe National Science Foundation.References[1] M. E. P. Seligman, Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press, 2011.[2] J. Gesun et al
policy making," PNAS Nexus, vol. 3, no. 6, 2024.[5] E. Ferrara, "Fairness and bias in artificial intelligence: A brief survey of sources, impacts, and mitigation strategies," Sci, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 3, 2023.[6] P. Sahoo, A. K. Singh, S. Saha, V. Jain, S. Mondal, and A. Chadha, "A systematic survey of prompt engineering in large language models: Techniques and applications," arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07927, 2024.[7] C. Shah, "From Prompt Engineering to Prompt Science With Human in the Loop," arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04122, 2024.[8] D. A. Norman, The design of everyday things. Basic books, 2002.[9] K. Dugan, S. Daly, C. Michaels, S. Skerlos, and A. Verhey-Henke, "Investigating a socially engaged design
©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Leveraging Innovation and Optimizing Nurturing in STEM: Investigating role identities of low-income engineering students prior to their first semester of college (NSF S-STEM #2130022)The purpose of the Leveraging Innovation and Optimizing Nurturing in STEM Program (NSF S-STEM #2130022, known locally as LION STEM) is to support the retention and graduation ofhigh-achieving, low-income engineering scholars with demonstrated financial need at Penn StateBerks, a regional campus of The Pennsylvania State University. The LION STEM programbuilds upon the Sustainable Bridges from Campus-to-Campus project (NSF IUSE #1525367)which formed the
mainprogrammatic components aimed at improving the engagement, retention, and graduation ofstudents underrepresented in engineering. These components include: “intrusive” academicadvising and support services, an intensive first-year academic curriculum, community-building(including pre-matriculation summer programs), career awareness and vision, facultymentorship, NSF S-STEM scholarships, and second-year support. Successful implementation ofthese activities is intended to produce two main long-term outcomes: a six-year graduation rateof 60%-75% for Redshirt students, and increased rates of enrollment and graduation of Pell-eligible, URM, and women students in engineering at participating universities. In the first yearof the grant (AY 16-17), SSPs
laboratory environments.Acknowledgement This research is funded by the National Science Foundation NSF NRI #1527148. Anyopinions, findings, or conclusions found in this paper are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.References1. National Robotics Initiative 2.0: Ubiquitous Collaborative Robots (NRI-2.0) (nsf17518) | NSF - National Science Foundation.2. Tucker C, Kumara S. An Automated Object-Task Mining Model for Providing Students with Real Time Performance Feedback. In: ; 2015:26.178.1-26.178.13.3. Hu Q, Bezawada S, Gray A, Tucker C, Brick T. Exploring the Link Between Task Complexity and Students’ Affective States During Engineering Laboratory Activities. In: ASME 2016
classrooms.AcknowledgmentThe authors gratefully acknowledge support of this work by the National Science Foundationunder Grant No. 1524527.References[1] Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.[2] Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 11(23), 8410-8415.[3] Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57-72. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00829.x.[4] Felder, R. M., & Brent. R. (2016). Teaching & learning STEM: A
examination data.References[1] Garrison, D., & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 4-8.[2] Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online Engineering Education: Learning Anywhere, Anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 131-146.[3] Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Juge, F., Moskal, P., & Sorg, S. (2006). Blended Learning Enters the Mainstream, In C. Bonk, & C. Graham (Eds.), The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs (195-206), San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.[4] Twigg, C. (2003). Improving Learning and Reducing Costs: New Models for Online Learning. Educause
persistentstructure of the education system even though we were explicitly attempting to behavedifferently. As we, the faculty and students, began to recognize the structure we could let go ofthe problem and the solutions. However, this “letting go” had to occur repeatedly (almostweekly) as the issue continued to be bothersome to many of us.What are the cultural beliefs, values, and paradigms that are causing the problems of intransigentSTEM pedagogies that result in STEM cultures that are exclusive? We first note that “S” refersto the physical, or equivalently, the natural sciences; it excludes all other organized ways ofthinking, or “sciences.” Implicitly, natural sciences are prioritized over other “sciences.”The natural sciences derive knowledge through
.2.2.1 Development Academic Partner and ActivitiesDistinguished faculty members from the Milwaukee School of Engineering and Virginia StateUniversity (a HBCU partner) have supported this project from the very beginning asDevelopment Academic Partners. Mutual interest is instrumental in this longstandingpartnership. The role of the academic development partner is well defined and involves thefollowing: Identifying at least one local industry partner involved in software development activities Working with assigned focus groups to critically review current course Developing six hours of course modules to address identified gaps in a content area familiar to the university program and its local industry partner(s
Works”, IEEE Spectrum, October 2011.[3] E. Ackerman, “CMU Develops Autonomous Car Software That’s Provably Safe”, IEEE Spectrum, July 2011.[4] Humanoid Robotics Group, http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/humanoid-robotics-group/, Last Accessed onDecember 26, 2011.[5] C. Y. Chen, P. H. Huang, “Review of an Autonomous Humanoid Robot and Its Mechanical Control”, Journal ofVibration and Control, Online, September 2011.[6] E. Guizzo, “These Humanoid Robots Could Kick Your Asimo”, IEEE Spectrum, October 2010.[7] M. Kroh, K. El-Hayek, S. Rosenblatt, B. Chand, P. Escobar, J. Kaouk, S. Chalikonda, “First Human SurgeryWith a Novel Single-Port Robotic System: Cholesystectomy using the Da-Vinci Single-Site Platform”, SurgicalEndoscopy, 25, 11, June 2011, pp
recognized for her teaching, advising, service, and research and as an Exemplary Faculty Member for Excellence in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Supporting students’ success in the cybersecurity field: Accomplishments and lessons learned by the ACCESS projectAbstractThe NSF S-STEM funded project “Attracting and Cultivating Cybersecurity Experts andScholars through Scholarships” (ACCESS) has a goal to increase the number of high-achievingundergraduate students with demonstrated financial need who complete a degree in thecybersecurity field. This goal contributes towards addressing the huge unmet need forcybersecurity experts. This paper
also a first-generation college grad- uate, child of immigrants, and a published author. He is a former McNair Scholar, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine-Ford Foundation Fellow, Herman B. Wells Graduate Fellow, Inter- national Counseling Psychologist, former Assistant Professor at the University of Kentucky, and current Post-Doctoral Research Scholar at the University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Z.’s research program focuses on examining the impact of intersectional oppression on historically excluded groups & creating culturally relevant interventions to enhance their well-being. Within this framework, he studies academic persis- tence and mental wellness to promote holistic healing among BIPOC
, “Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence,” International Small Business Journal, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 479-510, 2007. [2] H. Matlay and C. Carey, “Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a longitudinal perspective,” J. Small Bus. Entrep. Dev. vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 252–263, 2007. [3] N. Duval-Couetil and J. Wheadon, “The value of entrepreneurship to recent engineering graduates: A qualitative perspective,” in Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Frontiers in Education Conference, IEEE 2013, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, October 23-26, 2013, pp. 114-120. [4] N. Duval-Couetil, T. Reed-Rhoads, and S. Haghghi, “Engineering students and entrepreneurship education: Involvement
options: A meta-analytic path analysis of the social-cognitive choice model by gender and race/ethnicity,” Journal of Counseling Psychology, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 17–35, 2018. 2 A. Bandura, “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change,” Psychological Review, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 191–215, 1977. 3 A. Bandura, “The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory,” Journal of Clinical and Social Psychology, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 359–373, 1986. 4 R. W. Lent, S. D. Brown, and G. Hackett, “Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 79–122, 1994. 5 H.-B. Sheu, R. W. Lent, M
when the next homework assignment is due, he feels like he can easily rely on a TA to bring him back up to speed when that time comes [S-11].Figure 1. Ad-hoc persona with scenario narrative.Reflect on ad-hoc pre-work. The goals of the ad-hoc pre-work were to (1) develop and pilot ourpersona/scenario development processes and to (2) reflect on our assumptions and potentialbiases about STEM students before constructing the data driven usage model. In reviewing ourad-hoc personas and scenarios, our obvious bias toward engineering students was evident. Weagreed that two of our personas, persona 1 and persona 2, might be considered engineeringstereotypes. Persona 3, we felt, represented the more nontraditional engineering student that issomewhat
success in their chosen majors. Thisdecision was also a result of the authors’ interest on SVS literature and the successful experienceof offering a pilot face-to-face (FTF) training on campus to improve SVS for 6 talented, low-income students in an NSF S-STEM scholarship program in Spring ’14. Previous studies in theSVS subject [1], [2], [3] report that well-developed SVS lead to students’ success in Engineeringand Technology, Computer Science, Chemistry, Computer Aided Design and Mathematics.Bairaktarova et al. [4] mention that aptitude in spatial skills is gradually becoming a standardassessment of an individual’s likelihood to succeed as an engineer.Support from industry provided the funds needed to acquire training materials created by Sorby
engineering students engaged in an MEA, we were not convinced thatthese activities could elicit the broad range of design thinking activities we were interested inobserving. These activities are heavily dependent on the student(s) developing a mathematicalalgorithm or a mathematical approach to solve the given problem. In order to understand how atask could elicit design thinking, we began to review literature on design thinking and collectedstudio problems from the industrial design program at the college. Studio problems are used tointroduce concepts, vocabulary, and skills applicable to continued study in a variety of visualdisciplines. There are typically used in the introductory design course where students areintroduced to two-dimensional
; ReflectionThe results in this section are drawn from ten UCSD EMPOWER scholar responses to the surveyquestionnaire. Summarized responses are categorized into the corresponding survey sections“Transition to a 4-year University”, “Participating in the Program”, “Future Participation in theProgram”, and “Sense of Belonging”. The full, deidentified responses are found in Appendix A.Survey respondents’ demographic information:Figure 3: a) Identified Gender, b) Identified Race or Ethnicity, and c) Highest EducationalDegree Completed by Parent(s)/Guardian(s) for survey respondentsA. Transition to a 4-year UniversityThe first five questions asked to students are intended to gauge their experience transitioning intoa 4-year university. In general, the