[1]. Missing from NGSS, but present in many state learning standards as well as thenational Head Start program’s Early Learning Outcomes Framework [2], is preschool scienceand engineering. In the northeast United States, where this study took place, the states ofMassachusetts, New York, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut allhave science and engineering standards for children in preschool. In general, the standardsrecommend that children in preschool learn to identify and solve engineering-based problems.Many of the standards also recommend that children record their ideas and plans for engineeringand science through simple drawings and writing. What is most important to note is thatengineering is present in all of
mathematics courses to engineering students. He is also very interested in the effects of small learning communities on learner motivation, commitment and strategies. Email: Isolan@scsu.eduDr. Ronald W. Welch P.E., The Citadel Ron Welch (P.E.) received his B.S. degree in Engineering Mechanics from the United States Military Academy in 1982. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Civil Engineering from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana in 1990 and 1999, respectively. He became the Dean of Engineering at The Citadel on 1 July 2011. Prior to his current position, he was the Department Head of Civil Engineering at The University of Texas at Tyler from Jan 2007 to June 2011 as well as served in the Corps of
proposed solutions, which are a departure from traditional accommodations focused primarily on lectures and exams, and to motivate a call for action to develop more resources for all students. Introduction The average number of college students reporting a disability has continued to increase, with 11.1% in the most recent data available from the Department of Education [1]. Notably, a more recent report on mental health in higher education found up to 35% of students have met the criteria for at least one mental disorder in the prior 12 months, which suggests that the total number of students with disabilities in our classrooms is higher than the reported figures [2]. This increase in reporting has led to many much-needed discussions regarding
programs.IntroductionThough women earned more than 50% of the bachelor’s degrees awarded in the United States(NCES, 2015), from 2010-2013 they earned an average of only19% of the undergraduateengineering bachelor’s degrees, compared to 20% in physics, 42% in math and statistics, 49% inchemistry and 59% in the biological sciences.1 Wide disparity in gender diversity exists amongstengineering disciplines; in 2015, the percentage of bachelor’s degrees awarded to women rangedfrom 11% in computer engineering to 50% in environmental engineering.2 Numerous studiesindicate that in most engineering disciplines no differential attrition exists by gender,3,4,5,6,7 andthat the large gender disparities among graduates are due to low initial enrollment of women inengineering.Why
solving process.IntroductionUnlike physics courses, the emphasis of many engineering courses is on problem solving, ratherthan understanding the fundamental laws in nature. Although there are debates on theeffectiveness of traditional homework in education [1-4], the overwhelming majority ofengineering faculty believe that homework is an indispensable component in the courses theyteach. There are four instructional goals for homework: practice, preparation, extension andintegration [5-7]. As an analogy, nobody can write good essays just by reading a few examples.Therefore, engineering students cannot grasp the knowledge and skills without the process ofstruggling with homework problems, which is confirmed by research results [8].Unfortunately
technology students lack experience of solving real world problems. We believeProject Based Learning (PBL) is especially effective in preparing students for the challenges inindustry. PBL is a dynamic classroom approach in which students actively explore, solve real worldproblems, and gain knowledge and skills through developing real products. PBL is a systematiclearning and teaching method. It engages students through research assignments, open endedquestions and well designed products [1] [2]. In [3], Analytis et al. introduced a paper robotproject, in which 76% of students reported gaining more knowledge in programmingmicrocontrollers, and 69% students reported learning more in creating electronic circuits. Mauket al. presented a point of care
customer to get the fullest benefitfrom the goods”, Panchak [1]. A notable illustration of Drucker’s vision is the transformationundertaken by the Apple Corporation. Known some thirty years ago as the manufacturer of thevenerable Macintosh computer, this dominant market player is now known for its revolutionaryiPhone system: an exquisitely designed and manufactured piece of hardware, surrounded by avast array of services including telephony, web access, audio visual content, appointmentcalendar, health monitor, GPS, banking service, etc. These, in the words of Drucker, “enable thecustomer to get the fullest benefit from the goods”, and clearly, have led to tremendous profitmargins for Apple. Many other examples of bundling products and services
thisstudy provide valuable insights into the similarities and differences across groups, which can beused to inform how the professional skill of reflection is taught and practiced within engineeringcurricula.IntroductionReflection has long been considered an important aspect of professional practice. Educatedpractitioners utilize reflection to connect the knowledge of their fields, infuse this knowledgewith meaning, and intertwine knowledge with their own personal identities [1-7]. We arereflecting any time we draw on prior experiences and use our interpretations of these experiencesto inform our choices and actions to impact the present or future. Grossman further specifies fourlevels of reflection: content-based reflection, metacognitive
, particularly those in highneeds schools. Findings to date indicate professional development for school counselors is apromising intervention for recruiting and preparing students for engineering careers, an essentialgoal for maintaining technological innovation and economic vitality in the region and beyond.IntroductionRecent reports have documented the persistent shortage of engineers in the U.S. [1], [2]. Whilehigh unemployment is not currently a major challenge across the country, the engineering sectorcontinues to experience an ongoing inability to produce a sufficient quantity of skilled engineers,leading companies to seek talent offshore [3], partly due to a lack of engineering education in K-12 schools [4], [5]. In addition, the graduation rate
)shown in Table 1 shows that the percentages of women receiving BS and PhD degrees in theUSA in Computer (CE), Electrical (EE), and Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) arelower than the percentages for engineering as a whole [1]. In fact, the representation of women inthese fields is among the lowest for the 23 fields of engineering studied. For BS degrees, thepercentage of women was 20th for EE, 22nd for ECE, and 23rd for CE. For PhD degrees, thepercentage of women was 17th for EE, 19th for ECE, and 18th for CE Table 1: Degrees awarded to women in USA in 2015 (Source: ASEE) BS PhD
. The data traffic destination is a Windows PC. The PLC and PC share a LANconnection and all data traffic is over Ethernet. Both strategies work well, yet the advantages of theopen architecture strategy, using demonstration software, is judged to be the most favorable solution forthe classroom and laboratory.I. IntroductionIn a recent ASEE conference paper [1], its author presented the case for broader instructional goals inintroductory Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) courses. He cited the need to include systemcommunication skills to support supervisory control and data acquisition tasks, compelling elements inmany curricula. Useful laboratory configuration details are in the body of work. In particular, thePLCs all had Ethernet physical
hasprovided opportunities to apply their technical knowledge to engineering projects.1 The aspectsof this approach usually have teams of students working to complete an authentic designchallenge. The students learn in these classes through facing challenges in a project of theirchoosing that requires them to acquire new skills. Students can learn these skills throughtraditional instruction from an educator or through self-learning. The benefits of this type of classcome from the exposure that students get to real world design approaches. Unfortunately, thiscourse structure requires a large portion of class time to non-technical topics and burdens theprofessor with developing project prompts which can take up much of their course planningtime. In
member. The team designed a low-cost device that used near-infrared (NIR)spectroscopy to visulaze veins18. Using visible light in the red to orange spectrum was alsoconsidered, but not chosen due to the quality of the results. The final design consisted of aRaspberry Pi controller, a bright high-contrast display, an NIR light source, an infrared cameraalong with a touch screen input device, all powered by a USB battery pack. The device wasassembled in a 3D-printed housing (shown in Figures 1 & 2) with total parts costs of $168.84. 18
. [1]. As programs strive to diversify they also desire to beinclusive. Inclusion is an important factor in supporting the retention of individuals frommarginalized and/or underrepresented groups. In order to do so, it is important to address issueslike microaggressions and implicit bias. Microaggressions are subtle unconscious insultsdirected toward minorities, women, or those from a subordinate group [2], [3]. Implicit biasrefers to subconscious opinions or stereotypes that influence our understanding, behaviors, anddecisions [4]. These subtle or unconscious behaviors can negatively affect recipients.Researchers have shown faculty regardless of gender were equally likely to exhibit bias againstfemale students and these biases lessened the
that troubleshooting exercises helped them perform better in other labs andprojects; about 56% of students agree or strongly agree that troubleshooting exercises helpedthem better understand the theory introduced in the lectures.Sample troubleshooting exercises, troubleshooting rubric, detailed student performanceevaluation data, students’ and instructors’ feedback, and future plans for improvement arepresented.* Appearance of authors is in alphabetical order by last name.IntroductionAccording to a national survey of business and nonprofit leaders commissioned by AACU [1]:93% of employers surveyed say that “a demonstrated capacity to think critically, communicateclearly, and solve complex problems is more important than [a candidate’s
willing to get involved in the organization and creation of activities. Anonymous surveysindicated respondents found the activities were a good use of their time and addressed a need intheir lab. These findings indicate that support for scientific writing and publishing can beprovided in a regular and organized way within research groups using a model based on mutualhelp and peer assistance. University services that already offer support for scientific writing andcommunication can integrate their existing activities within the community of practice of aresearch group by involving lab members and working on a basis that involves knowledgeexchange.1 Introduction1.1 OverviewGraduate students are expected to learn and research new ideas, as
technology programs have sought to establish the correct balance of theory andpractice to maximize student learning. It is often difficult to overcome preconceived notions thatstudents bring with them, such as the comparative speeds at which objects of different weightsfall under the force of gravity [1]. By engaging students through demonstrations, hands-ondesign and fabrication projects, and physical laboratories, misconceptions can be overcome, thusreinforcing the fundamental principles needed in engineering education [2], [3].Eight years ago, the School of Engineering and Technology restructured its undergraduatecurricula to include the PBL core in each program. Each academic year BSEE, BSECET, BSE,and BSET students experience one or more PBL
female. Laboratory assignments werebased on the specified interests expressed by the students, who worked with individual facultyand laboratory personnel on original research projects. Data were collected using pre- and post-experience surveys and student reflections. Findings indicate that students enjoyed working inthe laboratory settings with the researchers and participating in authentic research activities.Their career goals in STEM and health-related professions were reinforced and strengthened as aresult of their participation.IntroductionInterest in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields has been decliningamong students in the U.S., while the number of available positions in STEM fields is steadilyincreasing [1
: Support for student writing can be achieved through community-based exchange,even with limited resourcesProviding the tools for graduate students to collaborate, share and receive feedback,constructively discuss, actively learn, and experience first hand, a microcosm of scientificcommunication, succeeded in supporting student writing and critical thinking as well as breakingstudent isolation. A paucity of resources should not inhibit educators from launching a scientificwriting assistance program, as they can guide the growth of a learning community that providessuch assistance.1 IntroductionIn this paper we present various activities that engineering educators can use to provideassistance to graduate students in their scientific writing. As
discussion includes the triangulation of these findings in light of teachingobservations, responses from a mid-semester student focus group session, and informal facultyreflections. We close with questions that we and others ought to address as we strive to integrateengineering, technology, and the arts. We hope that these findings and discussion will guideother scholars and instructors as they explore the impact of art on engineering design learning,and as they seek to evaluate student creativity resulting from courses with similar aims.Keywords: design; creativity; innovation; arts; STEAM1. IntroductionEngineering educators have begun pursuing a myriad of strategies for integrating the arts intotheir curricula [1, 2]. The primary objective of this
engineering education.Three methodologies are used to characterize and model the effects of education and experienceon engineering students’ and expert designers’ design cognition. The methodologies are drawnfrom: 1) design theory: design ontologies, 2) cognitive science: protocol analysis and cognitivestyle, and 3) statistical modeling: standard statistical analysis, Markov modeling, and problem-solution index. Given that different designers with varying education and experiencebackgrounds, and designing for a variety of requirements under different conditions, theFunction-Behavior-Structure (FBS) ontology methodology from design science is utilized as ameans of characterizing designing in a uniform waythat is independent of the designer, the design
full interactivity. In addition, student usage and readingrates can thus quantify usefulness and quickly guide further development to improve studentlearning outcomes.The dearth of available reading data for higher education students has been discussed in previouscontributions in this area recently [1-3], and will not be elaborated upon here. Alternatively, digitalclassroom technologies provide more data to students and instructors than any previous period inhigher education. From downloads of documents, page views in a course management system, orclicker responses in class, the ubiquitous term “big data” applies in most modern higher educationclassrooms.Interactivity is central to collecting large data sets. The interactive textbook discussed
majors.Introduction/BackgroundNowadays, more and more scientists, engineers and innovators are needed to succeed in theglobal competitive economy environment. As a result, this requires quality science, technology,engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. However, few American students pursueeducation and training in the STEM fields. After noticing this challenge, the whole STEMsociety has made great efforts to increase STEM-related activities, which have the potential topromote collaborative learning and inquiry as well as to contribute to the development of the21st century skills [1]. The US government also realized the shortage of STEM workforces. Itinitiated the “Educate to Innovate” program to increase student participation in all STEM
toengineering disciplines, and broadly aimed at promoting engineering and engineering education.Research and dissemination, and participation from faculty, staff, and non-engineering studentsand academic units in chapter activities are generally limited. In this paper, we describe a cross-college model of an ASEE chapter that includes an interdisciplinary network of faculty, staff,and students across colleges of engineering and education in a large Research I institution. Thechapter consists of five working groups: (1) K-12 engineering education, (2) undergraduateengineering education, (3) graduate engineering education, and (4) diversity and inclusion inengineering, and (5) research and dissemination. Using a bottom-up model, the working groupsdrive
theretention and persistence of Black women in engineering and computer science across allacademic levels.IntroductionIn 1840, Catherine Brewer became the first woman in the United States to earn a bachelor’sdegree. One hundred and seventy-six years later, women made significant gains in degreeattainment and are now outpacing men. Females matriculate in greater numbers than males inboth undergraduate and graduate institutions [1]. They also have higher graduation rates at allacademic levels [1]. According to a report published by the National Center for EducationStatistics, the difference in degree attainment between women and men is most pronouncedwithin the Black community [2]. Between 2009 and 2010, Black women earned 68% of allassociate degrees
, training, and confidence regarding TWC-driven tasks. Finally, by elicitingveteran students’ previous technical writing training in a military context, the recommendedsurvey apparatus can be used as a meaningful tool for teaching TWC educators how to provideopportunities for veteran students to demonstrate in-classroom leadership and contributeexperiential insight for the collective benefit of veteran students and their traditional studentcounterparts.IntroductionAt its height of participation in December 1947, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944,Public Law 346, provided for 1,245,000 veteran college enrollments [1]. As of 2016, veteraneducation beneficiaries has again risen to over 1,000,000, with the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill providingassistance
prepare these individuals to demonstrate resilience, and be life-long learners[1]. Life-long learning is critical for the development of engineering graduates who will be ableto address the Engineering Grand Challenges [2] and other wicked problems of our ever-changing world. In parallel with this mission, universities also work to address student needsrelated to retention and inclusion. To add further complexity, engineering students now pursuean ever-widening range of career paths after completing their undergraduate degree. Onecommon thread across these competing demands are the needs for engineering education toholistically develop resilient individuals who can maintain motivation, invest significant effort intheir learning, and persist in
, and those thatare missing, in the problems that students solve, and are exhibited in the solutions they create.Then, we use the results to define a set of guidelines that would contribute to improve the realismof SDP’s, both in terms of their problem definition and of the evaluation and assessment ofstudents’ solutions.Introduction Research suggests that engineering education and practice are disconnected [1]. Inparticular, early career engineers believe that “engineering work is much more variable andcomplex than most engineering curricula convey” [2]. Successful engineering, in practice, isdriven by the skills necessary to solve open-ended, ill-structured problems, such as problemformulation, communication, people management
experience of teaching it for the first time during the 2017-2018 academic year, and plans for the future.IntroductionIn 1997, ABET rolled out the Engineering Criteria 2000 (EC2000), which introduced for the firsttime an understanding of social context as a requirement for engineering education. This is anacknowledgement that engineering practice does not occur in a vacuum, but must be responsiveto the various economic, political, and cultural forces around it. In the years since EC2000,many engineering programs have struggled to meet this criteria in a meaningful way [1]. Thereasons are primarily two-fold. First, the addition of so-called “soft skills” into the curriculum inno way reduces the amount of technical content that is also necessary to