members within their program of study. What made this workshop design different is the participation from each entity in the alliance and their knowledge about technology programs. The objectives for the workshops are accomplished by the following activities: 1. The students joined American Toastmasters or similar organizations which assists them with soft skills and helps them with their writing skills and public speaking. 2. Students received job training through practical lab assignments and real life applications. The students then present discoveries and are evaluated by their peers, industry, faculty, and advisory board. 3. Increase students’ technical
addition of the Grand Challenge-basedassignments on student learning outcomes. Thus, the assignments will be retained for futuresemesters but refined to enhance their effectiveness with respect to students’ critical thinkingdevelopment. Efforts should be made to assist students in recognizing the value in using the PEframework to improve and reflect on their own thinking. One possible improvement is givingstudents opportunities to revise their assignments after feedback, thus encouraging them to refinetheir own thinking. Additionally, students will be given opportunities in class to evaluate theirown writing and that of their peers using the PE framework. Like revision, it is hoped that thisactivity will enable students to reflect on their own
highereducation environments have been repeatedly demonstrated to overcome these factors. The“Tinto Model of Student Retention”7 provides a useful framework for discussion of academicand social integration, adopted by existing successful programs such as National ScienceFoundation (NSF) funded Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP), whichaims to “build productive capacity and output within institutions having significant enrollment ofminority populations” 8 in STEM fields. Specifically, Tinto’s theory recommends tailoredintervention to meet the needs of specific cohorts (e.g. transfer students, academically “at risk”students, “non-traditional” students). Interventions take the form of undergraduate researchexperiences, faculty and peer
affective dimension of reentry shock, but the course offers a range ofactivities that help students to re-engage with their experience abroad and to integrate theirinternational experience into their career plans and professional self-presentation. Specifically,the course activities encourage students to participate in several activities that will encouragetheir global orientation, such as serving as an “ambassador”, mentoring a service-learning team,or interviewing a peer or a professional about their global experiences. Finally, the courseincludes structured reflection in the form of a final writing project.15Georgia Tech has long been a leader in international learning. Its International Plan serves as amodel for engaging, as Lohmann, Rollins
haste to complete the exercises. The clarity of text-based exercises can often be an issue. Not every student interprets instructions in the same way. Students read and interpret instructions at different speeds. This results in challenges keeping the class moving through material together. This can exacerbate a weaker student’s understanding of critical concepts as they rush in an attempt to keep pace with their peers. Instructors and TAs are often by-standers when students are working on these exercises. In many cases they are relegated to assisting students understand the instructions rather than engaging them in deepening their understanding of the concepts. This is not the best use of their time and skill
consistency of grades, each grader is responsible for grading the same section for eachdeliverable for the entire semester. With this system in place, two instructors and two teachingassistants are able to grade deliverables for nineteen student companies in an afternoon. In orderto assure that students gain experience writing a variety of sections and graders, students are notallowed to write the same section for two consecutive deliverables. More importantly, thissystem actively encourages students to communicate the strengths and weaknesses of sectionsthey have already written to their teammates, enabling an atmosphere where students can teachtheir peers and reinforcing what they have learned. This communication is essential as it helpsall
) Division. His research over past 10 years has resulted in national and international recognition, industry collaborations, 5 patents/patent appli- cations and over 75 scholarly publications in highly regarded discipline specific journals, peer-reviewed conference proceedings and invited book chapters. He is a scientific and technical reviewer for over 50 in- ternational journals, book publishers, and several funding agencies. He is a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Mexico. His research interests include water and wastewater treatment, bioelectro- chemical systems, desalination, algae, biofuels, and sustainability. He enjoys teaching and mentoring undergraduate and graduate students in research
importantly, they all have the same goal: to learn howto do research. Second, at “brown-bag” lunch meetings, each REU student would present abouttheir project, progress, and difficulties. Third, they were required to write a paper step-by-stepthroughout the summer, including the literature review, conducting the experiments, performingdata analysis, and writing the conclusions. Last, they were required to (1) create a poster tosummarize their work, (2) present their findings at both a university-wide poster session and anengineering-oriented poster session, and (3) respond to their peers’ questions about their projects.In addition to working on a research project, participants would also attend workshops and fieldtrips related to imaging technology
scoring rubric of teacher/assessor observations of student performance/behavior) and qualitative (semi-structured interviews and rapid ethnography) evaluation techniques. 3. It is performance assessment, since it uses a scoring rubric based on Bloom’s taxonomy to classify student cognitive understanding based on writing assignments and closely follows the design of the project from inception.6An external evaluator assessed the impact of the project by observing lectures, labs, and toursand by interviewing key informants. Initially, the course interventions were implemented by theprimary investigator (PI). In year 4, after the three-year implementation phase, the new courseinterventions were tested by a new lecturer and
grades over the course of the semester?Final grades for the course were determined through two individual assignments (20% of thefinal grade), and five team assignments (40% of the final grade), where every team memberreceives the same grade. The remaining 40% consisted of a combination of individual- and team-based grades: reflective journal, peer evaluation, mentor evaluation, and engineering graphics.Because assignments in engineering graphics contribute 20% to the final grade, and were gradedon a pass/fail basis, we compared student performance both with and without the graphics Page 26.1740.2grades.On an overall basis, we have not found a
Technology. She received her B.S. in Engineering from Brown University, her M.S.E.E. from the University of Southern California, and her Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Southern California in 1999. Her area of research is centered around the concept of humanized intelligence, the process of embedding human cognitive capability into the control path of autonomous systems. This work, which addresses issues of autonomous control as well as aspects of interaction with humans and the surrounding environment, has resulted in over 180 peer-reviewed pub- lications in a number of projects – from scientific rover navigation in glacier environments to assistive robots for the home. To date, her unique
(mechanics) course has been completelyrestructured. Prior to the restructuring, the course had a traditional structure, consisting of aseparate lecture (3 hours three times per week), laboratory (3 hours once a week) and recitation(1.5 hours once a week). Beginning in 2009, the traditional structure was discarded in favor of asingle, blended class meeting 2.5 hours three times per week. Moreover, the new class wasdesigned to operate as an active learning course (i.e. with very little lecture) by making use ofseveral active learning methods including peer instruction (aka think-pair-share) and interactivepeer laboratories. The implementation of the active learning methods was done in phases overseveral years and each phase was assessed using the
classmate) where the resulting learning or cognitiveengagement was not possible without another person's presence or input [1, 2]. Examples includeworking with peers to construct a deeper understanding of course material through group activityor interacting with the instructor in a way that augments understanding [1, 2].Constructive - Activities in which the cognitive load of students is heightened, and asks them to"produce outputs that contain ideas that go beyond the presented information" [1, p. 77]. Examplesinclude creating diagrams to organize course content, rephrasing the instructors lecture into thestudent’s own words, etc. [1, 2]Active - Activities in which students are only cognitively engaged at a basic level, such as note
” programs and “first yearseminars”, international first year experience conferences (see, for example, the EuropeanFirst Year Experience 2015, www.uib.no/en/efye_2015), centers such as the NationalResource Center for First Year Experience and Students in Transition (www.sc.edu/fye), andan international journal on the first year experience (https://fyhejournal.com/index ). In SouthAfrica about a third of students drop out or fail their first year of university study4 .Some of the things first year students typically struggle with are: choosing a career direction,managing their time, mastering academic skills such as effective study methods and academicreading and writing, assessing their own understanding of their work, coping with the fastpace and
; and practiced technical writing and communicationexercises. In a class project, students worked in teams of three to four to apply Leadership inEnergy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) principles forevaluation of proposed Community Development Plans or Redevelopment Projects. The projectassignment required teams to: a. Develop a proposal, b. Perform analysis, interpret findings, and provide recommendations, and c. Summarize study and results in a final report and PowerPoint presentation.Each team conducted an assessment of the principles and resulting LEED-ND scores that wouldbe achieved for the community area plan assigned to them. The selected sites included: CahabaHeights Community Plan, Calara
populated by their peers and taught by lecturers from within the faculty. Theadministration and content of the course straddles the Humanities and engineering, and as suchprovides a unique space in which to study the intersection of science and the arts and theperceived positive impact of a liberal arts education for engineers, including increased culturalawareness, greater flexibility in inter and cross-disciplinary collaboration, improvedcommunication skills, and comfort with learning outside the discipline [1-6]. To extend thisfurther, the comparatively homogenous engineering population of Representing Science on Stageand the immersion of its students in a liberal arts classroom that by necessity demands theiractive participation, affords
), Team activity tracking (tool) Systems and (2) environmental monitoring Information exchange indicator (tool) monitoring (tracking the team’s environmental Stakeholder/customer feedback (tool) conditions) Project plan (artifact) Assisting team members to perform their Discussion boards (tool) tasks. Assistance may occur by (1) Mid project peer evaluation (artifact) Team
Holliday (2007), in a qualitative approach, data are gathered from various sources and evaluatedin a hierarchy to provide new concepts.18 In addition, the nature of this type of research isexploratory and open-ended.19 In the review of ASEE papers it was found that the range ofreferences used in literature review papers was between 30 to 40 papers.20,21 Therefore, more than30 peer-reviewed research papers published after the year 2000 were extracted from fourdatabases: Web of Science, Scopus, Engineering Village, and ASCE Library. The key words usedin search engines include: leadership development in civil engineering, leadership in civilengineering, leadership in construction education, leadership and civil engineering curriculum. Wenarrowed the
our worksheets were well received andpositive correlation (p=0.05) between how much a others did not accomplish our goals. Thestudent participated in class and his or her final project greatest difficulty was in writing questions Page 26.1555.9grade. P-values were determined using a linearregression t-test. that were challenging and would push the students, but also not so hard that studentsfelt incapable and frustrated. We identified a few common
lower percentage (64%) of students found it comfortable touse the mobile device and application to document use of correct units during the solutionprocess. Participants were expected to use a stylus to write the solution process on the digitalwhiteboard made available through the Explain Everything application. This study did not askfollow up questions to the participants on why they found documentation of units particularlydifficult.Creation of graphs and the labeling of axis and curves were also areas of difficulty, since only58% of the participants expressed that they were comfortable in doing it. It appears thatcreating/importing a graph or labeling its component parts from within the Explain Everythingapplication, was not an easy task for
background to higher education.Recently, the University of Massachusetts Lowell College of Engineering performed a reflectiveself-study, a peer evaluation, a student feedback/focus group and a student survey to determinehow to redesign the introduction to engineering sequence10. This redesign was purposefully per-formed as a student centric reflection and evaluation. The freshman year experience redesign co-incides with the appointment of a new Dean in the College of Engineering as well as with thedeployment of several ‘ maker’ initiatives, including: (1) an NSF grant to examine the impact ofHands-On Design and Manufacturing Experiences in Mechanical Engineering (Hands-OnMADE4ME: Hands On Machining, Analysis and Design Experience for Mechanical
Independent Study Presentations Solve equilibrium problems and Peer Review based on friction forcesLectureClass was held two times per week for 110 minutes each period. Lectures, in general,covered about 20 minutes of class and were planned with a minimalistic approach,focusing on the essential points. The remainder of class period was designed for in-classactivities, including problem-solving as well as hands-on lab experiments.In-Class ActivityIn-class activities were based on active-learning strategy, in which students worked on aproblem posed by the instructor –at times individually and other times in pairs or ingroups, before participating in a class-wide discussion. The motivation of
SetupAs briefly mentioned above, a major contribution to the success of the setup is a simple webserver whose IP address lies outside of the allowed IP scope for attacking. The web serverprovides a scoring engine to students and teachers. Students that are able to compromisevulnerable machines can submit flags obtained for points on this engine. This naturally creates aleaderboard where teachers can gauge the progress of students. Students are provided withfeedback on their progress and a means of comparison with peers. To facilitate this, the CSRLteam used a free scoreboard engine that was previously used as a hacking CTF (Capture TheFlag) scoreboard.This web server can also be used by students to submit write-ups of their solutions that
the college, a developmentalworkshop was created for the clinical faculty within the college of engineering with a vision ofmaking clinical faculty more engaging and organized instructors. The workshop was modeledafter the very successful week long ASCE ExCEEd Teaching Workshop. Participants were notonly exposed to various teaching pedagogies, but were actually required to incorporate thepedagogies into a practice class, presented to their peers and to master teachers.IntroductionAccording to the ASEE Engineering Data System,1 engineering enrollment at U.S. universitieshas increased 56% since 2005 (421,072 to 655,160). At the same time, the number of tenuretrack faculty has remained level at approximately 26,000, while the use of non-tenure
and have strong existing ties to the land-grant universitythrough programs funded by Federal and private agencies. Each Alliance institution identifiednew initiatives for this project to complement those already in place, providing synergy towardthe overall project goal. These initiatives include focused and enhanced recruiting; developmentof detailed transfer guides; training for admissions personnel and academic advisors; studentenhancement programs such as student research opportunities, internships, math immersion, andalternative spring break; a focus on career counseling; formal and peer tutoring; andimplementation of improved student tracking. A particular focus of the KS-LSAMP isrecruitment and retention of military veterans in STEM
. The written report was evaluated using the WrittenCommunication VALUE rubric, which was developed by faculty experts sponsored by theAssociation of American Colleges and Universities. This VALUE rubric evaluates a writtenreport based upon five categories – context of and purpose for writing, content development,genre and disciplinary conventions, sources and evidence, and the control of syntax andmechanics5. The video infomercial was evaluated using the Elevator Pitch Evaluation Rubric,created by faculty at Rowan University for a sophomore-level design course. This rubricconsiders content, organization, style, delivery, and the overall presentation6. Both the writtenand oral assignments were double coded to ensure the quality of the
programming, technical presentations and technical writing are taught in lec- ture and in online modules.This first year course has made significant use of the CNC laboratory to perform both short andlong projects. With approximately 160 students in the course in the Fall 2014 semester and 51students in the 2015 spring semester, this represents a relatively high student volume for hands-on manufacturing activities. Laboratories are run through the week with 18-19 students per sec-tion. The goal of the course is to maintain a relatively low-cost, project-intensive experiencewhile covering the appropriate content. Three categories of projects are performed during a se-mester, with approximately 10-15 CNC machining hours per student group
ElectricalEngineering, and six in Mechanical Engineering. All of these students should certify within theirmajor in the next year and have joined their peers as successful students in engineering.In this paper, we present an in-depth view of the program as well as evaluation results from thefirst two years of the program. We also showcase best practices and lessons learned in supportingat-risk students in engineering.STARS ProgramRecruitment and SelectionSTARS enrolls approximately 32 students from low socio-economic backgrounds each year ateach university. To qualify for the program, a student must be Pell Grant-eligible, graduate froma Washington high school with thirty percent or more of the students receiving free- or reduced-priced lunches, and express
Standards (NGSS)foregrounds the importance of collaboration in science and engineering practices by integratingcommunication as a fundamental criterion at all levels of K-12 education: “Engineers need to beable to express their ideas, orally and in writing, with the use of tables, graphs, drawings, ormodels and by engaging in extended discussions with peers.” 13 Such communication practicesare necessary for generating design solutions and for planning and carrying out collaborativeinvestigations.Previous studies indicate that young learners encounter communication challenges related totask, relational, and identity issues when collaborating on engineering design projects.14, 15 Otherresearch has identified effective scaffolding to support middle
. Page 26.293.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Bringing Technology to the First Year Design Experience through the use of Electronic Design NotebooksIntroductionIncluding a coordinated curriculum that provides an atmosphere of collaboration and supportfrom peers with first-year engineering students has been shown to increase graduation rates andthe overall positive experience for students.1,2 Our freshman Introduction to Engineering designcourse strives to accomplish this in part by providing a collaborative real-world engineeringdesign experience that pushes students to work well together to accomplish a design goal. Manyof these first year engineering students take