difficulties are not inclusive to them and may be shared by native speakers ofsimilar academic backgrounds. One of us mentioned how he restricted his communications withhis peers and faculty due to his internal belief of the existence of a linguistic barrier.Language Language was the second inquiry subject that we examined. We agreed that language hasmainly influenced us in three ways: (1) Interpersonal Communications, (2) Reading and (3)Writing. While reflecting on our experiences, we identified challenges that were common to allof us. Here we share these challenges and describe different ways we have overcome them.Besides, we provide suggestions to support others experiencing these challenges based on howwe wished these challenges were
Paper ID #12741Help Seeking Among Undergraduate Men and Women in EngineeringDr. Joanna Wolfe, Carnegie Mellon UniversityJaime Allen Fawcett, Carnegie Mellon University Jaime Allen Fawcett recently completed her undergraduate studies at Carnegie Mellon University in De- cember 2014 where she received a degree in Professional Writing and an additional degree in Creative Writing. Her research interests include pedagogical practices, educational policy and cultural attitudes that influence learning and development for students with specific learning disabilities.Dr. Beth A Powell, Tennessee Technological University
university about their classroom surroundings and its impact on their learning andcomprehension. The reflection prompt defined surroundings as the “conditions and objects thatsurround you.” This reflection question was part of an NSF-funded study on the use of weeklyreflection in a flipped fluid mechanics course to drive metacognitive development and lifelonglearning skills. During class, students were encouraged to collaborate with their peers duringproblem solving to achieve collective understanding and interact with the instructor. Based on aninductive, emergent content analysis of the reflection data with two analysts, we obtained anunexpected result. Specifically, the most-frequently mentioned positive classroom “surroundings”was “peers” (46
teachingcommunication are geared towards small class sizes and are difficult to adjust for large groups ofstudents. Directly scaling this approach would require a large number of qualified instructors—i.e., to support and assess students' communication activities—at a significant cost. Someresearchers have addressed these problems by developing online writing centers, resources andtutorials for communication skills4-7 .Online peer tutoring has also been suggested as a potentialapproach8. However, these efforts are still new and further investigations are necessary.Despite the increasing efforts, a large scale survey by Reave9 found that there is still a “large gapbetween the workplace needs and graduating engineers’ communication skills.” Based onReave’s work
experiences with peers asa major contributor to their dissatisfaction with engineering. Many of these negative experiencesoccur in team projects that are ubiquitous in engineering programs. In the absence of intentionalinstruction on teamwork and effective collaboration methods, students—especially women—struggle and have negative experiences that stymie the self-efficacy and confidence-building thatshould occur during the senior year. The objective of this paper is to highlight key issues withengineering capstone projects and to identify best practices that result in better outcomes forwomen. This work evolved from the first author’s experience in teaching the civil engineeringcapstone course and from participating in a “Writing in the Disciplines
University Innovation Fellows organization (now part of the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford, a.k.a. the d.school).Mrs. Catherine Rose Bates, Institute for STEM & Diversity Initiatives Catherine Bates received a bachelor’s degree in Women’s Studies and Creative Writing from Florida State University and a Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing with an emphasis in fiction from Arizona State University. She serves as the Program Director for the NIH Southwest Bridges to Baccalaureate program and the Program Coordinator for the NSF Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation program. In her current role at the Institute for STEM & Diversity Initiatives, Catherine is dedicated to expanding re
program’s UgR activities had helped them improvetheir writing skills and oral communication skills (96%).To offer peer feedback and to simulate a more professional review process, two UgR activitiesinvolving peer review sessions were conducted during year-three. The first peer review sessionwas conducted in the blind, with participants submitting their abstract and rough paper drafts tothe directors, who then removed all identifying entries and redistributed the works back out tothe participants for review and comment. The participant then conducted their blind reviews andreturned their comments and suggested edits for redistribution back to the authors. The secondpeer review session was conducted informally, with participants paring up and
) .Project-based Learning as a Vehicle for Social Responsibility and Social Justice in Engineering Education.Silvia de Freitas, C. C., Beyer, Z. J., Al Yagoub, H. A., & DeBoer, J. (2018). Fostering Engineering Thinking in a Democratic Learning Space: A Classroom Application Pilot Study in the Azraq Refugee Camp, Jordan.Smith, J. M., & Lucena, J. C. (2018). Social Responsibility in Engineering Education and Practice: Alignments, Mismatches, and Future Directions.Svihla, V., Hubka, C. A, & Chi, E. (2018). Peer Review and Reflection in Engineering Labs: Writing to Learn and Learning to Write.Tang, X. (2018). From 'Empathic Design' to 'Empathic Engineering': Toward a Genealogy of Empathy in Engineering
wereused. These writing assignments asked students to not only explain the causes of the Flint WaterCrisis, but also to propose strategies to prevent another crisis like the one experienced in Flint.Lastly, to provide a sense of community, the problem sets were solved in pre-assigned studentgroups and writing assignments underwent a process of peer-review.Integrating teaching-as-research, learning communities, and learning-through-diversity.Teaching-as-research was used to develop this report. Throughout this report, we aim todetermine if our intervention (a Flint Water Crisis case study) benefited student learning. Wecollected and analyzed data to test our hypothesis, and we make recommendations for futurecohorts based on evidence. To encourage
sought to understand the student’s level ofconfidence in their ability to write programs and the importance they placed on programming intheir future career.Following the semester-long introductory programming classes, we conducted a week-longworkshop for a small group of students who were part of the ANON project. We report on the twoworkshops that we conducted in January 2022 and January 2023. The data contains reflectionsnoted down by the instructor and near-peer mentors during the workshop. We also report on thedata from the pre-workshop and a post-workshop survey.FindingsFirst, we report on the confidence and interest of students enrolled in introductory programmingcourses. We draw upon their response to list topics in introductory computer
%)and illustrates effective targeting toward their peer audience.The infographic assignment has been implemented winter quarter 2017 in two sections of theIntroduction to Engineering course (total of 90 students placed in 30 teams) and also in onesection of a Critical Thinking and Writing course (~20 students). The Introduction toEngineering course repeated the assignment and both draft and final rubric assessments wererecorded. The full rubric results are available in Appendix E with summarized results availablein Table 3. The infographic platform chosen by student teams again favored Piktochart (57%)with other platforms chosen including Venngage, Google Slides, MS Word, and various Adobesoftware. The top vote earning infographic posters from
thesis significantly transformed from these reciprocities. Writinggroups such as these have been shown to create a “community of discursive social practice” thatsupports peer learning and peer review (Maher et al., 2008, p. 263). Through this process ofcollective learning via dialogue and relationships, I explored and built on greater complexitiesand theories in my final thesis than I would have been able to achieve as an individual. But itwent beyond the theories, I also gained confidence in being able to do this paradigm shiftingwork with others—in knowing that, regardless of the pushback and the number of uphill battles Ihad to fight, that I wasn’t alone in this work.And an amazing thing happened: I began to learn through writing. I never
. Werner, S. Ishizaki, S. Rohrbach, D. Dzombak, and J. Miller, “An analysis of engineering students’ use of instructor feedback and an online writing tutorial during drafting and revision,” in IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, 2015.[12] S. Taylor, “Comments on Lab Reports by Mechanical Engineering Teaching Assistants,” J. Bus. Tech. Commun., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 402–424, 2007.[13] D. J. Boud and W. H. Holmes, “Self and peer marking in an undergraduate engineering course,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 267–274, 1981.[14] J. McGourty, P. Dominick, and R. R. Reilly, “Incorporating student peer review and feedback into the assessment process,” in FIE’98. 28th Annual Frontiers in
Westmoreland Academic Success Program. In this capacity, she provides vision and direction for the Tutoring and Peer-Assisted Learning (PAL) programs and provides support to the General Engineer- ing Learning Community. She is also co-developer of Entangled Learning, a framework of rigorously- documented, self-directed collaborative learning. She has an M.A. in Music from The Pennsylvania State University and an M.L.S. from Indiana University. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Continuing to Promote Metacognitive Awareness in a First-Year Learning Strategies CourseAbstractThis complete, evidence-based practice paper builds upon our previous work [1] in
do you plan to study? What kind ofresearch interests you?" And "Who are you? What is your story?" With peer review,revision plans, and ultimately pulling the writing together into a polished statement;with a day long closing institute in September. 20 Program Design 2021: Adapting and Changing Mid-Stream ▪ GRE scholarships ▪ GEM Grad Lab ▪ NSF GRFP workshop ▪ Graduate school research & personal statements workshops ▪ Monthly asynchronous group workshops ▪ By mid-summer, completely asynchronous, individual & small group ▪ Graduate school research, personal
: this topic focused on reliving a special moment of achievement and recognition; • Introduce your readers to a mentor who supported you: this topic often highlighted the contributions of a teacher, parent, or other mentor who helped to guide the student.Students wrote a different story every week, first as a draft (followed by a review session withstudent peers and the instructor) and then as a revised text. Students did not receive a grade fortheir weekly writing; instead, the course focused on writing feedback that could allow the studentto develop their own writing process.In a required junior-level Thermodynamics course and in two upper-level elective courses inCivil and Environmental Engineering, students were asked to write
disciplines with special efforts toward womenand underrepresented student populations.The initiatives developed through the grant include a retention center learning space; careerexploration industry partnerships; undergraduate research and travel; peer advising; peermentoring; and pre-college outreach.Implementation & AssessmentRetention Center Learning SpaceAs part of the grant initiatives, a study and resource space was created within the College ofEMS. A classroom in one of the two engineering academic buildings was identified andapproved by university administrators for the center’s location. An interactive forum was held inthe spring of 2013 in the classroom that would be the future location of the center in order togather input from
teamsatisfaction and student assessments of team contributions. In first year team-based studentdesign courses, instructors use student self- and peer-assessment information to gauge teamfunctioning and even to affect student project scores. However, students’ identity characteristics,such as their gender and race, may impact the scores they receive from others as well as thescores they assign. The poster will also describe the creation of and results from a learning-analytics style investigation of the researcher’s own student team assessment data, and the posterpresentation will allow others to query the data set with their own questions. The final data setincludes assessment information from 620 first-year engineering students working in 132 teamsof 4
longer for a weaker student to finalize the project. As a result, theproject sometimes does not improve the students' weak abilities, knowledge, and teamworkcapabilities.This research investigates the educator's methods at the undergraduate level for engineering andparticularly construction engineering technology courses to analyze, assess, evaluate, and resolveteamwork problems. In addition to a literature review of the experienced and reported methods,the author shares different methods practiced in several years of teaching in various institutionsand countries.One of the methods with the better outcome is the student involvement in the assessment of theirteammates. How to arrange peer assessment is one of the topics. The related forms, their
column (the maximum grade is the total number of badgesavailable). In the comment section, the instructor adds the recently earned badge name. Thestudents are encouraged to write (or draw) each badge earned onto their name signs.Below are the specific EM/KEEN course objectives [3] that students will gain with throughoutthe course if you implement this type of system. KEEN Related Course Outcomes/Learning Objectives [3]: • Develop an appreciation of hard work & recognize the benefits of focused and fervent effort • Accept responsibility of their own actions and credit the action of others • Demonstrate an ability to set, evaluate, and achieve personal & professional goals • Be able to teach and learn from peers
Science Majors at alarge HSI. The approaches included the use of: (1) Collaborative, team-based and pairedprogramming, active learning, in-class exercises, as well as additional external assignments; (2)Active learning classroom environment whereby the physical space enhances and encouragescollaborative, small group interactions; and (3) In-class Peer Learning Assistants(undergraduates) that have undergone specialized training to facilitate discussion and interactionwith students in an active learning classroom setting. We conducted a study in a Programming Ifor Computer Science Majors (CS1) course to test the efficacy of the 3-pronged approachdescribed above. The control group (lecture based) pass rates were found to be 71%, whereas
of color who might nototherwise see themselves reflected in the larger engineering community. Students who are thefirst in their family to attend college may benefit most from the aspects of the program that helpthem develop institutional knowledge and strategies for navigating the university system, andprovide them with community and peers from similar backgrounds. Students who havedemonstrated their academic achievement relative to their peers by receiving a high GPA in highschool, but were not taught the critical reading and writing skills or were otherwise preventedfrom demonstrating their achievement due to cultural/language barriers, benefit from theacademic curriculum provided through the program
working). These peer comments and thenumerical peer feedback grade are used along with reported hours as part of the instructorevaluation grade described below.Instructor Evaluations. In aerospace senior design classes, 20% of the grade comes from"Individual Participation", which consists of two instructor evaluations each semester along withattendance, in-class exercises, and individual writing assignments. As stated in the syllabus, "Theinstructor evaluation considers time card data, input from staff members, faculty and industryadvisors, feedback from student leaders and peers, and the subjective assessment of the courseinstructor." To come up with a grade, first the instructor develops a formula using a weightedcombination of hours worked
create a partnership with the College of Natural Sciences to develop and deliver bias and inclusion workshops and training across the colleges for students, staff, and faculty. She continues to be active in service to the UT community working with peer and professional mentoring programs. She presents to numerous groups on a variety of leadership, inclusion, and career-focused topics. A member of the Women in Engineering ProActive Network (WEPAN) since 2006, Ana completed a three-year appointment to the WEPAN Board of Directors as Communications Director. Ana received the Eyes of Texas Award in 2011, the University’s Outstanding Staff Award in 2012, and the Cockrell School of Engineering Staff Excellence Award. After
working with their mentees. All mentees increased their confidence forparticipating in mock review panels and writing grants, with most saying that their confidenceimproved greatly. Both mentees and mentors also felt that there was a significant connectionbetween their peer reviewing skills and their ability to conduct engineering education research.The majority of program participants felt that the workload was reasonable and that the activitieswere well-paced within the program.Although both mentees and mentors indicated positive feelings for the program overall, manyalso felt that program logistics could be improved. The largest issue between both mentors andmentees was the clarity of instructions given by the project team. Many felt that
scheduled based on results from scholar surveys and journaling responses, whichincluded: WCU’s Career Services; Writing and Learning Commons, Math Tutoring Center,Library Research Liaison, and the Honor’s College. Additionally, peer-to-peer workgroups wereestablished to discuss and journal the anxiety themes within each groups’ activities.Year-one activities also included the development of peer-to-peer and faculty-scholar mentorshipgroups. These student lead groups sought to build foundational support for each scholar byestablishing learning communities with shared goals. The formation of these groups were bothorganic, with students self-selecting group membership, or highly structured by the programdirectors. Structured group membership was based
a PhD in Computer Science from SUNY, with particular emphasis on Data Mining and Big data analytics. He is an author or co-author of over 25 peer reviewed journal and conference publications and co-authored a textbook – ”Essential As- pects of Physical Design and Implementation of Relational Databases.” He has four patents in the area of Search Engine research. He is also a recipient of the Math Olympiad Award, and is currently serving as Chair Elect of the ASEE (American Society of Engineering Education) Mid-Atlantic Conference. He also serves as an NSF (National Science Foundation) panelist.Prof. Karen Goodlad, New York City College of Technology, CUNY Karen Goodlad is an Assistant Professor specializing in
. The presentation was assessed based on completeness, organization, visuals, writing mechanics, and presentation length. • Project 2: Structural and cultural barriers In support of course learning outcome #2, students completed an annotated bibliography and infographic related to one of the structural or cultural barriers women in engineering fields face. Students were required to review at least three primary sources and summarize information in an infographic. They shared their work with classmates in a gallery walk3. Annotated reviews were assessed primarily by source type and quality (i.e., peer reviewed), summary points, reflection response, and format. The infographics were
more of the teaching practices introducedand 3) developing a scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) project based on experiences intheir revised course. The summer academy includes multiple evidence-based teaching practices(such as POGIL, Mental-Model-Building, and Project Based Learning), an introduction to SoTLand IRB processes, and time for reflection and cross-disciplinary discussion of potentialapplications of each practice into participant courses. Discussion on the progress of participantSoTL projects and classroom peer observations both within and outside participant programs arethe key components of the academic year FLC.May 2014 and academic year 2014-2015 witnessed the first offering of the SPARCT Program,which engaged 16 STEM
-structured interviews allowed us to gather student perspectives on a variety of issues that theyconsidered to be relevant. In this paper, we present the analysis of the interviews. Our analysisfinds that students had three primary sources from which they deduce what they are expected todo, and how to do it: research experience prior to beginning their program, their PhD advisor, andtheir peers. Each of these sources helps students understand different kinds of expectations, withadvisors providing primarily high-level guidance on what tasks to accomplish, and peers helpingeach other with lower-level tasks. Many students began the program anticipating more hands-onsupport from their advisor, and instead found themselves relying more on their labmates