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
self-care. Students were asked to reflect in the middle of the quarter on if their plan was being followed, and to perform adjustments if necessary.(22) 4 b) “Reflection leadership assignment” which consisted of five reflection questions: (i) describe their long-term goals (>10 years), (ii) list the most important and least important personal values, (iii) describe ineffective leadership habits that were presented and discussed in class, and how they could overcome such habits, (iv) identifying major successes and failures in the next month as well as five years, and (v) describe leadership roles along with a
community engagement programs for understanding the value propositionfor each stakeholder group. Such investigations can help researchers and practitioners betteroptimize programs to more closely meet their full potential.IntroductionLeading institutions in engineering education have been focusing on integrating experientiallearning into the undergraduate experience in recent years [1], which is a pedagogy that involveseducators purposefully engaging learners in direct experience and focused reflection [2]. Onesubset of the experiential learning approach is community-engaged learning, which is intended toincorporate the five elements of engagement, academic connection, reciprocal partnerships, mutuallearning, and reflection [3]. In engineering
discipline-based educational research, including design self-efficacy, project-based learning, critical reflection in ethics, and high-impact practices.Lauren Christopher, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Dr. Lauren Christopher attended Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where she received her S. B. and S. M. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1982, specializing in digital signal processing and chip design. She worked at RCAˆa C™s David SaChristine Krull, Indiana University-Purdue University IndianapolisEric W Adams, Indiana University-Purdue University IndianapolisShahrzad Ghadiri, Indiana University - Purdue University IndianapolisRichard Vernal Sullivan, Indiana University-Purdue University
Technical Educators Board of Directors and currently serves on the Texoma Workforce Board of Directors. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Effect of organizational changes on student retention and engagementAbstractEngineering and computer science disciplines remain substantially under-represented inHispanic, African American and women students. Relative to the population demographicsreflecting approximately 50% women, 60% white non Hispanic/Latinx, 13% African American,19% Hispanic and 1.3% Native American, engineering demographics reflect under-representation. While recent trends reflect significant gains, women remain under-represented inengineering. Based on the ASEE EDMS system, in
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
. B ─ CONCEPTUAL SKILLS AND VISIONConceptual skills include handling ideas, thoughts and concepts. These include critical reasoning, creativethinking, and reflective thinking.Critical Reasoning Critical reasoning involves needs-finding, assessment of alternatives that satisfy theneed, and reflection on outcomes. In short, critical reasoning or creative problem solving is what effectiveengineer-leaders do. Experience plays an important role in critical reasoning because current bestpractices often are the starting point for exploration of alternatives to a problem. Experience allows theengineer-leader to judge the viability of current technologies and propose new solution to the problems athand. Reflection on past projects, the solutions to
enhance development of students' mentalmodels and are exciting advances for those teaching in this area because of ease ofimplementation and adaptation for different student populations. Implementation of theseactivities has the potential to lower the barrier to faculty participation in active learning. Themedia slogan “It’s so easy, a caveperson can do it” is the guiding principle behind thedevelopment of these activities. This paper will also present reflections of a diverse cross-section of teaching faculty and students for these classroom methods to highlight how thesepedagogical efforts may increase student self-efficacy for their technical learning. The researchquestion for this work is; "To what extent do student engagement activities