Science and Engineering Fairs (Evaluation)Science and Engineering (S&E) fairs are a valuable educational activity that are believed toincrease students’ engagement and learning in science and engineering by using inquiry-focusedlearning, engaging students in authentic scientific practices and engineering design processes [1-3], and emphasizing creativity [4, 5]. Proponents also argue that S&E fairs enhance students’interest in science and science careers [6, 7] as well as engineering [2]. From the fair, studentsreport that they have learned more about the scientific process and engineering design, althoughthey may not all feel their attitudes towards STEM fields has improved [2, 8]. In this paper, wefocus on science attitudes, but because
scientificdiscovery and, according to the Girl Scouts of America website, “help them see how they canactually improve the world.”Introduction/BackgroundNowadays, more and more scientists, engineers and innovators are needed to contribute andsucceed in the global competitive economic environment. As a result, this requires qualityscience, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. However, insufficientnumbers of American students pursue education and training in the STEM fields. After noticingthis challenge, STEM has become a great effort by many to increase STEM-related activities,which have the potential to promote collaborative learning and inquiry as well as to contribute tothe development of the 21st century skills [1]. The US government
surveyacross six sections of preliminary design at a small southwestern university to measure whetherchoice affects student motivation. The preliminary design courses were also co-taught bycommunication instructors. We found no link between perceived choice and final course grademost likely due to high final grades but did notice interesting interactions within the cohesion ofsenior design groups.IntroductionThe inclusion of engineering capstone courses that culminate a student’s senior year havebecome ubiquitous in undergraduate engineering programs. Capstone courses present studentswith opportunities in experiential learning activities [1] and problem-based learning that offerstudents choices about how and what they learn [2]. In these types of
Engineering and Language Attitudes in the U.S. A QuandaryGlobalization and the international projection of engineering In the last 30 years, the literature on engineering education has been paying increasingattention to the changes that the field has experienced due to the advancement of globalization.The goal of this concerted effort is to determine and validate the set of skills the job marketdemands from the engineer in the 21st century. There is consensus among researchers that in the context of globalization the U.S.engineering programs either adapt their curricula to meet the expectations of the globalworkforce or take the risk of becoming irrelevant [1]. Irrelevance refers to the currentcurriculum
include papers discussing software tools to help students draw FBDs,papers on the assessment of FBDs, and papers on techniques to help students draw FBDs.Tools that have been developed to help students draw FBDs include an app [1], and animatedGIFs to guide students in a step-by-step procedure for drawing FBDs [2]. Free-body diagramerrors that have been reported include ones that demonstrate a misunderstanding of the physicssuch as forces drawn at the centroid [3], incorrect or missing friction forces [3, 4, 5], andincorrect direction of the weight [4, 5]. Other errors in drawing FBDs include missing arrows[6], missing axes [4], and misaligned or unlabeled vectors [7]. Davis and Lorimer [8] developeda rubric for assessing FBDs in six separate
analysis, corpus linguistics, and discourse analysis. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Graduate Engineering Peer Review Groups: Developing Communicators & Communityabstract This study investigates student perspectives of graduate engineering peer review groups(PRGs). PRGs offer an ongoing supportive community for graduate students to improve theirwriting, presentations and posters through reciprocal discussion-based feedback. This studyconsiders data collected through semester surveys of PRG members over five years across twolarge public research universities in the United States. Each group met for 1.5 hours to review 1-3 pieces of student work each
, do research (e.g., [1][2]); however, in many academic research communities,students, not experts, make crucial decisions about methodological designs, techniques, andpractices as part of their everyday laboratory work. How then do students learn the subtle,foundational work of asking research questions, producing and interpreting evidence, anddrawing evidence-based conclusions? How can educators encourage and improve this learning?One valuable way to study students’ everyday decision-making about research is to watch howgraduate and undergraduate students work together to produce and assess evidence inlaboratories, in formal or informal graduate/undergraduate partnerships that we call GradUPs.We draw from the theory of situated learning in
a program, then describe how aninstructor uses gruepr, then present the design of the program, and finally provide initial analysisof gruepr and results from its recent use by 6 faculty members in the formation of teams within18 sections of a project-based, first year engineering course.IntroductionIt is no coincidence that engineering colleges are striving to provide the appropriate environmentto nurture and support team-based pedagogies to meet learning outcomes and prepare students tofunction as effective team members before entering the workforce. Research shows that team-oriented projects are becoming a customary pedagogy in both first-year and capstoneundergraduate engineering courses [1]. Additionally, team-oriented coursework is one
experiences are traditionally a major component of hands-on learning in engineeringcurricula and intended to impart a practical understanding of how science applies to the real-world [1]. Students in laboratory courses often conduct experiments or complete demonstrativetasks by following “cookbook”-style instructions [2], [3]. This passive process directs thestudents’ focus towards completing prescribed steps (i.e., following a procedural recipe), butrarely challenges students to think critically about what they are doing and ought to be learningconceptually [3] - [5]. Although students may develop a practical understanding of process skillsthrough tangible, hands-on lab experiences, the effectiveness of cookbook laboratory exercises toimpart
improvement. The paperwill include details on the experiment and the guided peer review process, as well as logisticalsolutions to achieve the blind peer review.IntroductionThe ability to write effectively is a critical professional skill for the practicing engineer, and thus avital outcome for engineering programs.1 Though many programs require specific writing intensivecourses to build these skills, it is also important that students practice writing as an integral part ofthe broader work of engineering in design and laboratory courses.2 In particular, laboratory reportsare a logical vehicle to synthesize the work of experiment design, analysis, and technical writing.However, simply requiring students produce written reports is of marginal value if
design competition. Thecompetition focused on the noise and space problem specific to Bern Dibner Library andchallenged students to find a solution. Although the competition was successful, it had limitedappeal among the student population and could not be recreated in libraries lacking a noiseproblem. After the competition concluded, we (the librarians) conducted a focus group with thestudent contestants and learned which elements of the competition worked well and whichneeded to be revised. In this paper, we present a newly inspired library competition: HackDibner. In designing Hack Dibner we had four specific goals in mind. (1) The competitionneeded to appeal to a large base of the student population, (2) create a triangle of
, from launch to glider landing, is the winner. While the rocket and the glider aredesigned and built separately, the design and placement of the mechanism that holds the glider onthe back of the rocket is a team effort.Airships: Students in the airship group utilize the popular air swimmers toy, a lightweight nylonbladder about four feet long, shaped and colored like a fish and filled with approximately 4.5cubic feet of helium to make it buoyant. Each of these floating vehicles is outfitted with flappabletail for propulsion and a pitch control device consisting of a weight that a second small DC motormoves along a track to control pitch. The tasks for the students are twofold: 1) experiment withdifferent tail shapes to determine best
their learning.This paper describes the design and implementation of virtual office hours for courses in thethermal-fluid sciences (Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, and Heat Transfer). Further, itreports on students’ learning experiences.IntroductionA virtual environment can provide students and faculty with more flexibility in meeting time,location, content delivery, and type of interaction. Traditional office hours are historically notwell attended [1]. Additionally, an instructor’s office can only hold up to three students. Virtualoffice hours have no limit on attendance and can also provide a low-stakes platform fordiscussions, allowing students to better articulate their thought process. Successful virtualsessions are dependent on
hidden curriculum in relation to ESI education. This paper aims to create awareness ofthe influences of hidden curriculum and how making these factors visible can support thethoughtful and effective integration of ESI into the engineering curriculum.Introduction and BackgroundHidden CurriculumThe concept ‘hidden curriculum’ was first coined by Phillip Jackson in his work “Life in theClassrooms” based on observations in elementary school classrooms [1]. With roots in educationand sociology [2], hidden curriculum “serves as one valuable theoretical framework from whichto examine the social functions of higher education” [3, pp. 4]. Hafferty and Gaufberg posit thereare four categories of curriculum. The formal curriculum is the “stated and
, the resultsand analysis of this self-grading exercise are shared, in terms of the scoring differences betweenthe student and the instructor, and whether this scoring differential changed with time.Qualitative feedback provided by the student based on this experience is also discussed. Lastly,the takeaways from this study and opportunities for future work are highlighted in the conclusionsection.Literature ReviewEducators actively seek out opportunities that provide the best possible environment for studentsto succeed, but the interest and investment level of each student is highly variable. Huff andJohnson [1] and Ndoye [2] noted that when students take responsibility and are more aware oftheir expectations they often become more enthusiastic
chance” at education. UVU has a high number of non-traditional students (age 25 or older – 34%), students with spouses (45%) and/or children underage 12 (20%) [1]. It also has the largest percentage of low-income (48%) and first-generation(38%) students of any of the universities in the state. These factors affect the overall graduationrate, which is low at 33% (nationally standardized IPEDS rate for completions within 150% oftime; UVU IR 2019) [1]. UVU’s students live at home or in off-campus housing, which makes itvery difficult to organize activities for student programs. Many students do not have time tospend much time outside of class on campus, leading some to feel little connection with otherstudents.New Engineering ProgramsTo meet one of
benefits of blendingentrepreneurial skills and tendencies with engineering are great. It has even been postulated thatengineers with an entrepreneurial inclination are the core drivers of economic growth in nations[1]. Many programs, both publicly and privately funded, have focused on entrepreneurship or theentrepreneurial mindset (EM) in engineering education. The National Science Foundation’s I-Corps program is one example on the public side, and the Kern Family Foundation’s KEENprogram (Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network) is an example on the private side.KEEN is a growing network of over 35 U.S.-based academic institutions with the shared missionof integrating the EM in their undergraduate engineering programs [2]. The focus of KEEN is
, educators can do more to encourage reflection, exploration, and self-directed learning among students. This is a work in progress, and the first phase has been a pilot study. This paper reports results of the pilot as well as the context, rationale, and design of the overall study. The pilot was the first step in a study seeking to provide new understandings: (1) spanning multiple professions; (2) identifying the various concepts that architecture and engineering students hold about the generation of new designs; and (3) describing how these conceptualizations compare within and between fields. The second phase will use phenomenographic methodologies to identify qualitatively different ways engineering and
Transformation Institute, earned a doctoral degree in Engineering Education from Purdue University. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Engineering from Elizabethtown College, a Master’s degree in Computer Science and Software Engineering from Auburn University, eleven years of experience in industry as a software engineer. Her research focus is on broadening participation in engineering and computing through the exploration of: 1) race, gender, and identity and 2) computer science education research in order to inform pedagogical practices that garner interest and retain women and minorities in computer-related engineering fields. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 Work in
employed by the military ingeneral rather than being “civil” engineers. The first non-military engineering curriculum in auniversity was instituted in France at the École des Ponts et Chaussees as a “civil” engineeringprogram in 1747 [1]. In 1847, the West Point Military Academy became the first systematicengineering school in the U.S. About 50 years after that, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institutefollowed Connecticut College as the first non-military school to implement an engineeringdegree curriculum. The Industrial Revolution maintained the hierarchical structure ofengineering as most engineers worked for the industrial enterprise or the government.The first concept bordering on Peace Engineering is probably that of “appropriate technology”.In his
American Society for Engineering Education, 2019 How Educators Implement Engineering Curricula in OST Settings Recent education policy documents call for a renewed emphasis on engineering as acritical practice for student learning in PK-12 settings [1], [2]. Engineering entails specificpropositional and procedural knowledge, which Cunningham & Kelly [3] argue are coreengineering practices that youth must understand as a part of authentic, inclusive, and equitableengineering learning experiences. Providing youth opportunities for engineering during theregular school day, however, can be challenging due to time and other curricular constraints. Due to these constraints, out-of-school time (OST) programs have been identified
. A faculty advisor, who is required for studentorganizations in most universities, serves as the liaison between the SWE section and theuniversity and is responsible for knowing the university’s policies. A faculty advisor helps thestudent section access university resources and ensures the section is meeting all universityrequirements. A counselor is required by SWE for a collegiate section to remain in “goodstanding” and serves as the liaison between the SWE section and other SWE professionalmembers and the industry [1]. The relationship between collegiate sections and their facultyadvisors and counselors is different at every university.This paper examines the role of faculty advisors and counselors in SWE collegiate sections
curriculum andengineering self-confidence among participants, we studied outreach camps targeted tohigh school women that varied in the incorporation of design into their structure. Wechose to study three camps: (1) a design-focused camp, (2) a design-incorporated camp(run by the authors), and a (3) design-absent camp. All three camps were at the sameuniversity but based in different engineering disciplines. Results from pre-post surveyWilcoxon Signed Rank tests showed that design-focused and design-incorporated campswere able to improve students’ perspective of what engineering is (p
human challenges.1 Engineering schools that are embedded within liberal artsschools, such as ours, are uniquely suited for such education. In addition, schools that havestrong research faculty can enable an additional component where students and curriculumare informed by research methodologies as well as advancements in science andengineering, thus creating a mind set for innovation and critical inquiry.In this paper we present two cases of comprehensive summer programs where studentsworked in teams on research-oriented projects. The teams are composed of internationalstudents and worked with a clear objective to learn and contribute in creating new devicesthat may advance state of the arts within a social and economic context. The topics of
in the field of engineering. PBL has long been shown to be an effectivemethod for student learning and understanding, particularly if thoughtfully integrated throughoutthe curriculum [1] and if instructors include key features, such as meaningful inquiries,scaffolded assignments, and consistent feedback [2]. Other studies have shown that PBL is moreeffective in deeper retention of material, satisfaction of both students and professors, anddevelopment of professional skills than traditional lecture methods [3]. However, the overalleffectiveness of PBL, and experiential learning in general, may vary widely depending on thenature and structure of the teamwork [4].This study was conducted at the branch campus of Texas A&M University
Framework of CT for Big E (CT-ENG)Computation thinking is a broad term that encompasses a set of concepts, techniquesand skills. In this section, the study will deconstruct and define CT in the context of“engineering with Big E” (CT-ENG) as follows: We firstly draw on multiply materialsincluding standard documents, reports, and other scholarly literature to identify thecore elements of CT-ENG. We then conduct face to face semi-structured in-depthinterviews with 19 professionals and 5 human resources executives from 11enterprises and institutes. After two rounds of revisions, we formulate a frameworkfor CT-ENG based on these four elements (See Fig.1): Digital Literacy: Understand the basic functions and terminology related to computer hardware
student to learn, but thetheory, terminology, and general understanding of application would benefit the students’college experience in the engineering curriculum.MethodsTo design a lecture that contains the importance of tolerance as well as the basic fundamentals ofthe subject, the curriculums of other schools are researched and compared to the currentcurriculum at NAU. Portland State University, a university similar to NAU, has 3 separate Introto Engineering classes that are required over the Fall, Winter, and Spring semesters of a student’sfirst year [1]. These classes are titled Introduction to Engineering, Introduction to Systems andControl, and Introduction to Design. These classes focus on teaching the students the importanceof
and curricula. Through this, we hope to enable more informed course andcurriculum design throughout the chemical engineering community. The 2018 survey focusedon “Thermodynamics,” a core engineering science. Thermodynamics is perhaps the topic fromthe chemical engineering core with the best available prior documentation, having been treatedby the AIChE Survey Committee in 1973, 1976, 1982, and 1992 (1–4), and having been studiedat some depth by an international group lead by Ahlstrom in 2010 (5).MethodsThe survey contained 40 mostly multiple-choice questions about undergraduate thermodynamicsinstruction. An electronic copy of the survey questions is available from the correspondingauthor upon request. Invitation links to the online survey
notnecessarily for academic researchers. Thus, each communication platform offered its own uniqueaffordances and challenges.Data Sources and AnalysisData for this study were collected across the ten weeks of the summer research experienceprogram. The primary data sources were participants’ finished, published public writing projectartifacts, public response to those products, and post-program interviews in which participantswere asked to explain what they saw a the main differences in communicating with engineeringaudiences and the general public, and to identify audience they value more and why. Informalinteractions between Author 1 and participants over Facebook probed for participants’reflections on how successful did they thought their project was
. Educators may wish to examine whether a human rights lens isrelevant to their teaching.IntroductionThis paper will illustrate how the United Nations’1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR) [1] can be used to frame ethics discussions in engineering. Engineering ethics in theU.S. are not typically taught or framed through the lens of human rights. A few notableexceptions include calls from Lynch [2] and Hoole [3] near the end of the United Nations’Decade on Human Rights Education (1995-2004). A human rights framework may be useful andbring engineering more in line with traditions in other professions. The paper first discussesprofessional ethics through a human rights lens, briefly comparing and contrasting differentprofessions. Next the