assistants. Any studentinterested in applying as an undergraduate teaching assistant (UTA) was required to complete aone-credit course titled “Psychology applied to teaching” before they can begin their duties as ateaching assistant. In this program, faculty are instructed to “integrate the student into thedevelopment of the course” and provide mentorship to the students. At the end of the semester,each UTA is given a questionnaire to reflect on their experience as a teaching assistant [5].The psychology department at the University of Scranton [2] used a similar approach in theirtraining of UTAs in their undergraduate coursework. The students must first complete aone-credit seminar to prepare for their teaching assistantship. The training seminar
workshop series provides teaching assistants with the ability to recognize andconfront bias among individuals and within teams, helps them develop an understanding ofpower, privilege, and oppression, and equips them with the tools to employ their knowledgeprofessionally. The workshops feature individual reflection activities and small groupdiscussions, culminating in a community-wide discussion on lessons learned and actionableitems to build an inclusive community within our first-year program.To understand the value of this training for the undergraduate teaching assistants, a survey wasconducted of participants before and after participation in the workshops. The survey aims tocapture the practicality of the training and the teaching assistants
global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors. 5) an ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts. 8) an ability to acquire and apply new knowledge as needed, using appropriate learning strategies.Riley’s text uses a modular format that engages students in a four-step process (Engage, Analyze,Reflect, and Change). Figure 1: Learning Process for ModulesThe modules presented in Riley’s text can be integrated “as-is” into typical thermodynamicscourses. However, as the modules are not
inrelated fields indicates students in blended engineering courses have improved attendance,motivation, and collaboration. We hypothesized that restructuring to a blended course wouldimprove coding confidence and competence over the traditional course. Two courses werecompared: one traditional course and another with programming content moved to weekly onlinemodules. A programming project was assigned after completion of the coding material in eachclass. Modules were created using a backwards design approach. The desired codingcompetencies were identified as: pseudocode, loops, matrix operations, and data visualization.Modules for each of these subjects contained review, practice, and reflection components.Review and practice materials were
content and reflections from the instructor, TAs, and students.1. IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted higher education worldwide in March 2020. Colleges anduniversities abruptly stopped in-person instruction and instead required remote teaching.Instructors’ challenges included preparing virtual lessons, learning videoconferencing software,and selecting appropriate graded assessments. At the same time, students’ learning routines weredisrupted as many returned home and were away from their peers; some students also lost thesafety net that the university provided, such as reliable food and shelter [1]. Furthermore, bothstudents and faculty were affected by limited internet connectivity and additional familyresponsibilities due to the
, and a practical leadershipexperience. We discuss the pedagogical approaches that: 1) foster reflective self-leadership; 2)support the emergence of personal vision; and 3) create learning communities. We conclude bysharing recommendations for engineering educators to implement engineering-graduate-student-specific, leadership development initiatives at their institutions.ContextThe Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering at U of T is home to approximately 3000graduate students and postdoctoral fellows and 5000 undergraduate students. The graduatestudent population is divided equally into three degree-programs, PhD, research-based Masters,and course-based, professional Masters. Of all graduate students, 29% identify as women and42% are
Paper ID #29206WIP: How Should We Decide? The Application of Ethical Reasoning toDecision Making in Difficult CasesMrs. Natalie C.T. Van Tyne P.E., Virginia Tech Natalie Van Tyne is an Associate Professor of Practice at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer- sity, where she teaches first year engineering design as a foundation courses for Virginia Tech’s under- graduate engineering degree programs. She holds bachelors and masters degrees from Rutgers University, Lehigh University and Colorado School of Mines, and studies best practices in pedagogy, reflective learn- ing and critical thinking as aids to enhanced
the solution themselves. Other times we will direct Concrete the students to a particular section, Experience paragraph, figure, equation, etc. in a text Reflective book that succinctly deals with the issue Active Observation at hand – we’ll say, “Someone read this,Experimentation and then see how that impacts your Abstract discussion.” Conceptualization Our goal in this is
differences are measurable. According to the National Research Council,assessments are most effective when they are based on explicit, clearly conceptualized cognitivemodels of learning that reflect the most scientifically credible understanding of ways learnersrepresent knowledge and develop expertise in the domain1. Learning targets may take the formof knowledge mastery, reasoning proficiency, skills, ability to create products, and dispositions13.Learning outcomes identified for engineering design courses vary greatly: in some courses thefocus is on design products, in others on student design methodologies. For capstone designcourses, learning outcomes commonly identified include: the engineering design process,integrating design process with
pursue upongraduation. For this study, odyssey project assignments were given to two classes during twodifferent academic years at Arizona State University. The first odyssey project assignment wasgiven to a graduating senior class in the fall semester of the 2014-2015 academic year. The sameassignment was given to a freshman class in the fall semester of the 2016-2017 academic year.As part of the assignment, students were expected to reflect on their time at Arizona StateUniversity, and also map out their plans for the first few years following graduation. They wereexpected to illustrate this as seasons within an “Odyssey Years Timeframe” template. Figure 1shows an example of the odyssey years timeframe template students were expected to
ClassroomLiterature reporting the implementation of coaching in engineering classrooms demonstratescurricular designs and learning outcomes with positive student outcomes. Stettina, Zhao, Back,and Katzy [26] implemented coaching practices in short stand-up meetings that focused onasking powerful questions to reflect and assess progress on project deliverables. Using a quasi-experimental approach, the researchers found that adding coaching into small stand-up meetingsprovided for successful information exchange and increased student satisfaction in courselearning. Knight, Poppin, Seat, Parsons, and Klukken [29] looked at the impact on teamorientation and team task performance of senior design course teams with graduate levelcoaches. The teams with graduate
”, through student produced reflections captured inpre-and post-surveys. We hypothesize that this redesign will result not only in increased studentlearning, engagement and long-term retention of flight dynamics concepts, but also introduce thestudents to a “systems type” thinking, as applied to UAS.Introduction Over the last decade there has been a significant shift from the use of fixed wing remotecontrolled aircraft to multirotor platforms, thanks primarily to a coolness factor, relativelyinexpensive imports as well as their flexibility in terms of flying, hover and carrying variousimaging payloads. But, with user sentiment shifting from “Can you build a Quad, Hex or Octo –copter, it is cool”, to “What tasks can your Unmanned Aerial System
first elaborate on the major elements of the liberatory struggle, relationships,understanding, transformation, and solidarity [22]. The first element, relationships, highlightsthe status of the oppressed and oppressor in oppression, “institutionalized dominance of one partof humanity by another” [23, p. 41]. There are oppressors who tend to reproduce the status quo,and there are the oppressed, who are target group in institutionalization of discrimination anddominance. Understanding, is the stage in which the oppressed acknowledge the fact that theyare oppressed and critically seek for the causes. As a result of such critical reflection on the stateof oppression, the oppressed may discover who they really are. However, the oppressed need
andthe process of students growing and developing into members of the community, whether definedas the academic or professional community.The context of this paper and its reflection on the use of outcomes to design and operate anengineering program is the proposal for significant changes in the ABET criteria. Discussionsamongst the ASEE community have included webinars, a virtual conference, and a town hallmeeting at the 2016 ASEE conference.4 The goal of this paper is to provide an example of howoutcomes have been used as a driver and motivator for innovative change in engineeringeducation.ValuesThe outcomes currently defined in Criterion 3 are a clear statement of the values the broadengineering community holds, such as use of foundational
taught courses on the development of reflective teaching practices, and has presented workshops on learning how to learn and developing metacognitive awareness. He has published and presented on engineering design, engineering pedagogies, and instructional development topics. Page 26.80.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Pedagogy of Larger Concerns: Grounding Engineering Faculty Development in Research on Teaching ConceptionsAbstract:This paper presents how the results of a study on teaching conceptions have come to exert both aphilosophical and
were interested ininteractive teaching strategies and were interested in continuous improvement of their teaching.In the second phase, the group leaders formed a teaching development group of their own for ayear before facilitating groups at their own institutions. Four teaching design groups, eachcomposed of 4-7 instructors, met regularly over the course of an academic year. The instructorswere primarily from engineering but some groups included other STEM instructors (includinggraduate students).Throughout the project, we collected meeting notes for each phone conference with the groupleaders. Later in the project, we collected group leader reflections and participant surveys inorder to document the design and implementation of the faculty
, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection,and exploration. Because the learning environment is context specific, its design may use onlysome of these teaching methods, or some more than others. Page 26.1687.4 Content Types of knowledge required for expertise • Domain knowledge: subject matter specific concepts, facts
engineering. Dr. Walther’s research group, the Collab- orative Lounge for Understanding Society and Technology through Educational Research (CLUSTER), is a dynamic interdisciplinary team that brings together professors, graduate, and undergraduate students from engineering, art, educational psychology, and social work in the context of fundamental educational research. Dr. Walther’s research program spans interpretive research methodologies in engineering edu- cation, the professional formation of engineers, the role of empathy and reflection in engineering learning, and student development in interdisciplinary and interprofessional spaces.Dr. Nicola W. Sochacka, University of Georgia Dr. Nicola Sochacka is the Associate
. Jim has taught courses on the development of reflective teaching practices, and has presented workshops on learning how to learn and developing metacognitive aware- ness. He has published and presented on engineering design, engineering pedagogies, and instructional development topics.Dr. Ken Yasuhara, University of Washington Ken Yasuhara is an instructional consultant and assistant director at the Office for the Advancement of Engineering Teaching & Learning (ET&L) at the University of Washington. He completed an A.B. in computer science at Dartmouth College and a Ph.D. in computer science and engineering at the University of Washington. When he finds the time, he plays with bicycle tools and knitting
of eachcourse is reflected in their respective titles. The first course in the sequence is titled,“Engineering: The Art of Creating Change”. The title of the second is: “Engineering Projects:The Practice of the Art”.Both courses use assigned reading followed by reflection, writing, and discussion related to adebatable question (or questions) posed by the instructor. Section size is limited to 25 students.A relatively senior member of the regular faculty and one teaching assistant facilitate classdiscussion using Socratic questioning.Both courses also use design projects as vehicles in developing student understanding of keyconcepts. In the first, the course requirements manage student-team project activities; in thesecond, the student-teams
needs and reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of the course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility.Many disciplines have imbedded service-learning into their college curricula as well as many K-12 schools. Service-learning is aligned very well with the ABET Criteria[2], as well as theNational Academy’s Report on the Engineer of 2020[1, 8]. Engineering is a relative late comer tothe service-learning movement. While there is a growing momentum within engineeringeducation, the community has been slow to adopt the pedagogy on a large scale.Components of Service-learningService-learning has distinct and important components. These
. Details on some of the relational learning opportunities are briefly presented below, with afocus on the educational purpose of the relationship and any key factors related to establishingand supporting the relationship. It is important to note that the interactions between theparticipants in a learning-centered relationship should be as clear and focused as possible toencourage appropriate dialogue, but with some room for teachable moments to spontaneouslyemerge. But it is also important to remember that deep learning can be both messy and hard (interms of effort and openness to change), and relational learning is inherently messy since itinvolves people instead of clean ‘textbook’ problems.Student – self relationshipsSelf reflection on
rankings reflect thesocio-economic status of the school’s students more than the school’s contribution. Figure 2, for example, shows a scatter plot of average performance on a reading test forall schools in an urban district. In this figure, the percentage of students qualifying for free andreduced lunch is a proxy for the average poverty rate in the school. None of these schools servean especially prosperous population; few have a subsidized lunch rate below fifty percent. Evenso, there is a dramatic relationship between poverty and reading achievement. Students inschools where all qualify for free lunch are on average a year behind those in schools where onlyhalf qualify. Starting about forty years ago a series of reports appeared
; absorb formal, preexisting knowledge about atopic; demonstrate ways to apply content in actionable ways; evolve in their career andprofessional development, and reflect on ways to process and summarize their thoughts.This paper presents an overview of the development of modules that will guide studentsas they prepare for their professional positions. Future studies will discuss the findingsfrom piloted learning modules.IntroductionGraduate engineering programs largely aim to prepare students for careers in academia.Programs emphasize research, academic publishing, and leadership in relevant nationalorganizations. As a result, engineering students tend to develop professional skillsrelevant to academia regardless of their career interests outside
perspectives and teamwork skills; however, studentsmade little to no changes in their interdisciplinary skills and reflective behavior over the courseof the semester. The course contained students from chemical engineering, civil andenvironmental engineering, and microbiology and immunology. Through coding responses tohomework assignments, we identified an increase in the use of engineering terminology inmicrobiology and immunology students as well as an increase in the use of microbiologyterminology in engineering students. During the fourth week of the course only 27% of studentsused terminology in responses to a homework problem that predominantly related to bothengineering and microbiology or a discipline other than their own, while in the
provides awareness to all students whileproviding avenues for other students to self-select a deeper understanding. This concept ofoperations is developed to reinforce key skills (create, innovate, collaborate, and deliver) andsupport a student’s accountabilities for becoming a leader (Learning the Most from TheirEngineering Courses, Joining the Journey Expanding Their Resources, Experimenting withCreating and Innovating, Learning from Experiences, Gathering With Other Engineers &Disciplines, Learning from Leaders/Courses, Gaining Work Experiences, Reflecting onThemselves and Their Experiences). This paper provides the foundation for further impactassessment in the future. A person responsible for developing and running an
overloaded,the School took an alternative approach. Launched in 2002, the Undergraduate PracticeOpportunities Program (UPOP) is a co-curricular program for sophomores that providesprofessional engineering experience and begins development of students’ non-technicalprofessional abilities at an early point in their undergraduate education. The UPOPprogram goal is to integrate three essential parts of effective learning: knowledge,experience, and reflection. UPOP consists of: 1) Knowledge 1- The program begins withan intensive week of engineering practice "boot camp" during the January intersessionand is led by engineering and management faculty. Through active case-based and role-playing learning sessions, students gain practical knowledge and
the hierarchical cognitive model and key aspects of this research. Proceedings of the 2003 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Copyright © 2003, American Society for Engineering Education In our research to-date, we have designed and used activities in our sophomore and juniorcourses to involve students in the lower levels. Table 1 lists some of these activities, categorizedaccording to the cognitive level in the hierarchy that they exercise. Some activities, such as theself-reflections, provide opportunities for the students to evaluate their metacognitivedevelopment, that is, their evaluation of the process(es) by which they learn material mosteffectively
. 2. Processes of component parameter identification based on frequency and time domain response. 3. Frequency and time-domain properties of transmission lines with time-domain reflections based on de Bergeron diagrams. 4. Frequency and time-domain operation of diodes and transistors 5. HF amplifiers; y, s, and ABCD parameters 6. HF oscillators (sinusoidal and pulsed); classical design and s-parameter design 7. HF communications circuits, including filters and mixers; modulators; demodulators, 8. HF speed logic circuits. 9. HF measurements and basic instruments such as spectrum analyzers and network analyzers. 10. Time
inquiry science we collapsed the three heuristics into 3phases: planning, observation and testing, and reflection and communication while highlightingwhere modeling is most useful in supporting student meaning making.In the planning phase of inquiry-based science, it is not apparent predictions can be representedin a preliminary model or that initial questions can be tested prior to conducting an investigationor solution. In the case of the engineering design cycle and graphic-based modeling, therepresentation and testing of preliminary ideas is encouraged. In the observation and testingphase the science investigation encourages recording of events and phenomena. The InformedDesign and graphic-based modeling approach encourages recording of