example, optimism [1], self-discipline [2], self-esteem [3] and grit [4]. Using a survey instrument developed through a multi-institution research collaboration [5, 6], we have identified a collection of non-cognitive factorsthat can account for over 26% of the variance in a student’s GPA, well above the 10% variancethat the SAT/ACT score can predict [7]. While there is a myriad of ways to characterize students’ NCA profiles, a recentlycompleted cluster analysis using Gaussian Mixture Modeling has identified four distinct clustersof students using these NCA factors, and the model accounted for 69.0% of participants [8]. Anincluded preliminary analysis indicated that membership within any of the four clusters was onlyweakly, if at all
learning.Recent Studies of the Cloud-Based SRSs in Engineering EducationStudies on the use and impacts of traditional SRSs on learning are not new and in fact have beenreported for a few decades. Similar studies about cloud-based SRSs have been conducted in thelast ten years, if not earlier. Table 1 summarizes recent studies regarding the implementation ofthe cloud-based SRSs in engineering education. Most of these studies reported on students’perceptions and some faculty reflection and did not have a baseline or a control to compare with.Table 1. Recent studies of SRSs in engineering education Course(s) SRS Brief Description Introductory Electric Top Hat Several multiple-choice questions were asked with Circuits7
role of undergraduate education is stimulating critical thinking and enablingengineering students to be creative while developing analytical skills. Virtual Reality is becominga powerful tool for multisensory teaching; it enhances learning by using imagery and haptics torepresent concepts and notions. Project-based interdisciplinary learning offers students a broaderperspective over systems’ integration while exploring fundamental notions of the topics studied[1, 2]. Several studies that were developed during the past decade classified the VR impact uponlearning as follows: (1) The VR evolved from a technological resource format towardscompetency-based learning [1], enabling students to take an active role in investigating theconcepts and
in the Summer of 2020. These data will help to further refine workshop content,as well as provide guidance to faculty about communication skills that should be more heavilyaddressed in the classroom.IntroductionCommunication skills are crucial for the success of practicing engineers, with engineersspending 64% of their time at work on communication [1]. Further, “given the escalatingdemands for 'work-ready’ undergraduates and the resulting heavy workload of engineeringfaculty and students, adding direct and recurring communications instruction to the engineeringcurriculum represents a significant challenge” [2]. Therefore, in order to address concerns foradding communication instruction, engineering programs have collaborated with
learning goal/outcome. There were two versions of interviewquestions, faculty version and student version, trying to explore the same topics. The interviewquestions only varied slightly, asking both the faculty and the student to reflect on the expectedstudent experience. Each interview lasted approximately fifty minutes. And an emergingthematic analysis will inform other prongs of the research. Example interview questions arelisted below in Tables 1 and 2.Table 1: Example interview questions in Area 1: Classroom Experience Q: Can you tell me your perceptions about students’ expected learning experiences through the curriculum? Walk me through the classes students take? (faculty) (probe) What knowledge and skills are they
engineering tobetter understand why individuals choose to leave the discipline. We focus our discussion on theexperiences of Sammie, Shawn, and Natalie, three white women who identify as havingdisabilities and are no longer enrolled in CE programs. As part of a larger, longitudinal studyexamining the professional identity formation of undergraduate CE students with disabilities,semi-structured interviews were conducted with each participant and analyzed using open andfocused grounded theory coding techniques. Findings revealed four overarching themes thatcapture participants’ pathways out of civil engineering: 1) experiencing conflicts with dominantCE culture; 2) encountering barriers within the CE curriculum; 3) navigating intersectingstereotypes
. She received her Ph.D. in Engineering Education at Utah State University with a research focus on the ethical and career aspects of mentoring of science and engineering graduate students and hidden curriculum in engineering. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Lessons learned about fostering curricular changeIntroductionDespite the numerous calls for institutional change to engineering curriculum, the wayengineering has been taught has not changed significantly over the last century [1], [2]. Tocounter this, the National Science Foundation put out a call for proposals to design and enactnew approaches to engineering education focused on organizational and cultural change
activities; i) to strengthenstudents’ core learning skills; ii) to create a personal space for building a support network of teachers and mentors;and iii) to engage in weekly activities to raise students’ academic achievement in the classroom and beyond. TheEduGuide program facilitates the discovery of: 1) various ways learning are connected in and outside of theclassroom; 2) How to break down one’s goals into simple steps for success; 3) Resources to help one to build his/herstrengths to accomplish one’s goals; 4) Strategies to overcome future obstacles by preparing for them now; and 5)Strong leadership skills. The program also enables students to: i) plan, look for opportunities, and measure theirprogress; ii) connect with teachers and other
-Main Campus, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Caitlyn Clarkson is currently a Ph.D. candidate at Purdue University in Materials Engineering and will be graduating in May 2020. Her research is in polymer nanocomposite processing and characterization. She is a fellow in an NSF-funded integrative graduate education and research traineeship (IGERT) program.Mr. Joseph Andler, Purdue University at West Lafayette Joseph (Joe) Andler is a Ph.D. candidate in materials engineering at Purdue University. Here, he is co- advised by Drs. Carol Handwerker in Materials Engineering and Rakesh Agrawal in the Davidson School of Chemical Engineering. His research has a dual focus of 1. developing novel chalcogenide semicon
association management experience to her work with ASCE’s Committee on Education on issues of importance to the undergraduate and graduate level education of civil engineers. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Lessons Learned in Developing the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge, Third EditionThe American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) recently published the Third Edition of the CivilEngineering Body of Knowledge (CEBOK3) in May 2019 [1]. The Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge 3Task Committee (CEBOK3TC) officially formed in October 2016 and spent approximately two and a halfyears developing the third edition. The third edition defines the knowledge, skills, and attitudesnecessary to
. The preferredpresentation method is Lightning Talk.IntroductionLecturers, also known as teaching or professional-track faculty, have served a significant role forseveral years at the engineering college at our large, research institution. Their value has onlyincreased with steadily climbing student enrollment, combined with demand for more time forresearch and administrative duties by tenure-track and tenured faculty: a shift occurring broadlyacross the academic landscape [1]. An active, university-wide union for lecturers creates theassumption that their collective voices and needs are represented “above” the college-level, butthe union has limited resources to support the needs of the growing population of lecturers withinthe college
instructional design, campus resources and required onboarding, andprofessional skills and identity development (See Table 1: NEO Session Titles and Description).These are the common themes you find running through the course lineup (see Figure 1: ProgramTracks).Audience in Context: The audience for the NEO TA Training Program is a diverse group ofgraduate students from the College of Engineering (80%) and the College of Agriculture and LifeSciences (20%). The graduate students are at all levels of their program, some being new to theinstitution. There is a heavy representation of international students in attendance in the Collegeof Engineering population. We intentionally keep the training to graduate students-only to providethe TAs an environment
programsoffered by individual degree-granting universities.Keywords: technology management; TM; management of technology; technologyconcentrations; graduate programs; Ph.D.IntroductionThe National Research Council [1] described the technology management as “a process, whichincludes planning, directing, control and coordination of the development and implementation oftechnological capabilities to shape and accomplish the strategic and operational objectives of anorganization.’’ McKirahan and Cheney [2] noted Gaynor reporting technology managementlinks the disciples of engineering, science, and management to plan, develop, and implementtechnological capabilities for shaping and accomplishing an organization’s strategic andoperational objectives. On the
institutions in an NSF IUSE grant to develop procedures to affect cultural transformations in engineering education. She also is Co-PI of the leadership team (Network Coordination Office) for the NSF Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure (NHERI). c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Lessons Learned: Integrating Active Learning into Undergraduate Engineering CoursesIntroductionStudent success is an ongoing concern in undergraduate engineering courses where high attritionrates are common. Inadequate prior preparation, lack of engagement, and difficulty of the content[1, 2, 3, 4] are some of the factors that produce these outcomes. One main challenge
encountermultiple barriers that prevent them from achieving their academic goals. Although they oftenhave good intentions to help students succeed, faculty often attribute the academic barriers to thestudents’ lack of preparation, motivation, or effort to learn. Research studies [1] showed that thisdeficit mindset of instructors negatively impacts the students’ self-efficacy and hinders theiracademic growth. A recent report from the National Academies [2] highlighted the need to createa learner-centered culture that “meets students where they are.” This raises an important yetchallenging question for faculty development: “What can be done to help transform facultyperception to achieve such cultural change?”As a Very High-enrolled Hispanic Serving
professional responsibilities inengineering situations, and make informed judgements...” [1]. Typically, ethics education issummarized into four main goals: 1) to make students aware of professional expectations, 2) tosensitize students to potential ethical issues that may arise, 3) to improve the students’ ethicaldecision making, and 4) to motivate them to behave ethically [2].The recent unscrupulous activity at high profile companies like Volkswagen [3] and Boeing [4]underscores the need to better prepare students for their professional practice. Unfortunately,effectively forming ethically-minded students is challenging due to credit hour limitations in theengineering curriculum, low student engagement, and a lack of perceived value in the
discipline is defined as the part of the technological field thatrequires the application of scientific and engineering knowledge and methods combined withtechnical skills in support of engineering activities; it lies in the occupational spectrum betweenthe craftsman and the engineer at the end of the spectrum closest to the engineer 1, 2.The Electrical Engineering Technology (EET) program at Kennesaw State University is housedwithin the Southern Polytechnic College of Engineering and Engineering Technology (SPCEET)on the Marietta, Georgia campus. The program has gone through several changes since the mergerbetween its Kennesaw State University and its original base university Southern Polytechnic StateUniversity (SPSU) in 2015. The EET program was
(CUST), Islamabad, Pakistan as Associate Professor. Sajjad Hussain did his masters in Wireless Communications in 2006 from Supelec, Gif-sur-Yvette and PhD in Signal Processing and Communi- cations in 2009 from University of Rennes 1, Rennes, France. His research interests include 5G self- organizing networks, industrial wireless sensor networks and machine learning for wireless communica- tions. Sajjad Hussain is a senior member IEEE and fellow Higher Education Academy.Prof. Ala Al-Fuqaha, Hamad Bin Khalifa University (HBKU) Ala Al-Fuqaha received Ph.D. degree in Computer Engineering and Networking from the University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City. He is Professor at Hamad Bin Khalifa University. His research
follow up to thesurvey, the librarians met with two focus groups who provided more qualitativeinformation on student use of eTextbooks. Survey and focus group results may informnot only changes to the service of providing eTextbooks, but also can be shared withpublishers to potentially inform improvements to ebook platforms. This paper reports onthe results of the survey and focus group and implications for the future.IntroductionIn the early 2000s, ebooks became available to academic libraries [1] and the wider world. TheUniversity of Michigan Library subscribed to a package of Netlibrary ebooks in the year 2000,and has continued providing and increasing access to ebooks over the ensuing 20 years. Thisemphasis on collecting in ebook format led
usage of future learning resources.This paper presents and analyzes the data from this assessment.IntroductionLifelong learning is included in Criterion 3 Student Outcomes in ABET EngineeringAccreditation Commission (EAC) and ABET Engineering Technology AccreditationCommission (ETAC) programs [1]. For some instructors of laboratory courses, this can be achallenging, vague, or difficult to measure student outcome because a consistent definition of“self-directed continuing professional development” or “lifelong learning” is not easily found.Some definitions focus on the learning outside formalized education with an emphasis on cultureand “creative innovation” [2]. Others define it in terms such as “independent pursuit” or“philosophy of personal
current study on lifelong learning and information literacy has grown out of this work as well as earlier work she conducted with Norma Godavari. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Lifelong Learning in an Engineering Communication Course1.0 Introduction and Objectives The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) has defined lifelong learning asa student’s “ability to identify and to address their own educational needs in a changing world inways sufficient to maintain their competence and to allow them to contribute to the advancementof knowledge“ [1]. ABET, through the Washington Accord, sets the standards for programsaround the world including Canada to ensure a
to ABET [1] are required to incorporate appropriate engineeringstandards and multiple constraints, and be based on the knowledge and skills acquired in earliercourses. The courses typically consist of a design-build-test sequence [2], where students arerequired to follow through the entire design process in addition to building and verifying theintended performance of the project.Mechanical engineering capstone projects reflect the broad nature of the profession, and as suchcan originate from many different fields. The overlap of Aerospace Engineering and mechanicalEngineering in particular generates a variety of capstone projects that typically are of highinterest to the students. However, a requirement for senior design courses is that the
regards to the Tampa Bay Interstate Express project andelements of equitable transportation. Her narrative provided concrete examples of elements fromthe ASCE Code of Ethics Canon 1 and Canon 8. Students’ written comments provided evidenceof effectiveness and impact. In a senior professional issues course, shorter clips from multiplemembers of the ASEE community panel were shown during class as part of both the ethicsmodule and sustainability module. However, it was unclear that the seniors gained any insightsor abilities from these activities. In an elective/graduate level course focused on site remediation,clips from Sydney Brown discussing Tonawanda Coke and from a community meetingdiscussing a proposed remedy at a Superfund site were
improving undergraduate engineering degree pathways. . She earned her Ph.D. in Engineering Education from Virginia Tech. In 2013, Dr. Mohammadi-Aragh was honored as a promising new engineering education researcher when she was selected as an ASEE Educational Research and Methods Division Apprentice Faculty.Anastasia Nicole Doty, The Ohio State University c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 Longitudinal Memos Investigating First Year Engineering PathwaysIntroductionAs of 2013, the majority of incoming engineering students (either by freshman or transfer status)progress through First-Year Engineering (FYE) courses [1]. These FYE courses are intended
. IntroductionOregon State University's (OSU) School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science(EECS) has been engaged in an ongoing study examining the Electrical and ComputerEngineering (ECE) undergraduate degree program. The key research questions were: 1. What educational experiences contribute to ECE seniors’ success in the senior design capstone year? 2. What instructional practices best facilitate these transformative educational experiences?In a previously-published literature review paper [1], key transformative educationalprogrammatic influencers were identified. Emancipatory Action Research (EAR), a pragmaticqualitative epistemology, and a critical mixed-methods approach were also identified as bestfitting methodological frameworks to
’ essayswritten in response to lectures and activities that related to art and narrative within the course.The two machine-based tools used here were i) naïve Bayes analysis and ii) Meaning ExtractionHelper. The results showed that both tools were able to identify differences in student essays. Wesuggest several ways in which these machine-based methods could be extended to aid inassessing learning and reflective thinking in students.IntroductionIn U.S. engineering education, ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology)advocates the broad development of engineering students.1 Congruent with ABET guidelines,engineering researchers have framed principled foundations for understanding engineeringpractice in social, cultural, environmental, and
October 2000. In thegeneral review of 2006, the CSET program was reviewed by both Computing AccreditationCommission (CAC) and TAC of ABET. The CSET program is currently accredited by both CACand Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC) - the successor of TAC. Thispaper demonstrates how the CSET program, housed in the Department of EngineeringTechnology at The University of Toledo, satisfies both ABET Computing AccreditationCommission (CAC) and Engineering Technology Accreditation Commission (ETAC) curriculumrequirements. CSET Science Engineering TechnologyFigure 1. Relationship between CSET and Computer Science and Engineering ProgramFigure 1 illustrates the ideal relationship between the
Community-Connected ElementaryGeotechnical Engineering Unit (Resource Exchange)Grade level: 3-6 (meets 4th grade engineering and earth and space science standards)Time: 8, 1-hour lessons. Final Design Challenge can also be a stand-alone design taskStandards: All NGSS 3-5-ETS standards are met, see full documentation for science standardsIn the ConnecTions in the Making project, researchers and district partners work to develop andstudy community-connected, integrated science and engineering curriculum units that supportdiverse elementary students’ science and engineering ideas, practices, and attitudes. In the units,students use human-centered design strategies to prototype and share functional solutions to adesign challenge rooted in the students
accreditation. Revisions in accreditationcriteria, however small, require reformatting the entire process. The shift from the iconic“(a) thru (k)” student outcomes to the newly minted “(1) thru (5) plus one [1]” may havebeen an improvement, but the effort involved in the transition at the program level has beenhuge. Furthermore, a major disconnect continues to exist between the vocabulary used inindustry (affecting part-time faculty) and that used by accreditation professionals. Severalauthors have investigated these issues and reported their findings but very few results areapplicable to EAC and CAC programs equally [9-19].As a result, the proverbial wheel of assessment and continuous improvement to address theaccreditation needs has been routinely
supportgrowth in the use of campus makerspaces both in numbers of students and the diversity ofbackground and major. Makerspaces have increasingly become part of the landscape of collegesand universities over the past decade, especially in engineering colleges where experientiallearning and design experiences are viewed as essential building blocks in educating newengineers [1]-[3]. Although it is exciting to have these new spaces filled with prototyping tools,professional support, and sets of student super-users, it is imperative that college makerspaces beaccessible, available, and intriguing to the breadth of students enrolled if we want theseparticular resources to positively impact more than a fraction of the student body. Institutionsmay find it