mechanism for an application is a challenging activity. It involves benchmarking,sketching various concepts, identifying kinematic outlines, carrying out preliminary analyses,finalizing one concept, carrying out detailed design, prototyping, testing, and finally refinement.There are numerous tools available for mechanism design and analysis, such as Working Model[1], Linkages [2], SAM [3], etc. They allow users to sketch a mechanism and extract informationrelated to kinematics and forces at joints and links. The process of sketching a mechanism variesbetween applications. Working Model, for instance, requires modeling link shapes as well asspecifying link lengths and angles to accurately create the linkage, while SAM represents linkagesusing
(SAE) team. The purpose of the course is to: 1) provide students with access to a faculty mentorthat can provide automotive engineering expertise, 2) compensate students participating on theteam with GPA hours, and 3) motivate students to participate on a competition team early intheir academic career. Throughout the semester, students are educated on common design,analysis, and testing procedures used to build the Baja SAE car. In addition, connectionsbetween the theory and homework assignments students are currently completing in their courses(e.g., Statics, Solid Mechanics, Instrumentation, Dynamics, and Machine Design) and thephysical application of the material in a hands-on project are made. Presently, the integration ofthis course into
, which is particularly known among the students to be a challenging experiment anddifficult to control, and thus less likely to be an option they would want to design a control systemfor. The one exception was a single group proposing to do a project connected with their Capstoneproject; this has been an option open to students, but rarely selected given group membership anddifferences in courses that students are currently taking.Table 1. Groups over the past 15 semesters that have selected the different respective project types. Project Type Number of Groups Distillation 32 Heat Skid 42 Helicoil
. Alice L. Pawley, Purdue UniversityDr. Matthew W. Ohland, Purdue UniversityAbstractIn this paper, we discuss the results from our study on the experiences of first-year Black andBrown engineering students in engineering teams. This work is part of ongoing research onidentifying teams engaging in marginalizing behaviors against minoritized (race, gender,LGBTQ identity, nationality) students. Using a diary study methodology, we explore the teamexperiences of Black and Brown students by examining two research questions: 1) what doesracial marginalization look like within engineering classrooms where teamwork is a primaryfeature and 2) what experiences from the dairies inform researchers and faculty aboutparticipants’ experiences and personal
methods.Findings from our study reveal a potential two-fold challenge that needs to be addressed: Psycho-social challenges and technical challenges. Our future work will unpack these and other challengesacross the other 15 participants in the study.Keywords: COVID-19, Online Learning, Student Experience, Engineering Education, Sub-Saharan Africa, Technology Acceptance ModelIntroductionThe World Health Organization (WHO), in January 2020, declared the coronavirus (COVID -19) a global pandemic and reported that the virus was first detected in Wuhan, the capital ofHubei Province, China [1]. Since then, COVID-19 has become a household name worldwide,and its disruptive effects have impacted all sectors of society. COVID-19 has been compared toother major
-impact educational practice, andreflection is an essential piece of consolidating learning from experiences, as many models ofservice learning and other experiential learning note [1-5]. This paper addresses the mechanics ofassigning reflection, with an emphasis on assignment structure. Some degree of structure pushesa student to examine parts of their experience that may be messy or uncomfortable: precisely thetypes of learning that reflection highlights. But too much structure may curtail some of thenecessary messiness of reflection. The prompt should be open-ended enough to allow students tobring elements of their experience that they may think don’t pertain to the subject at hand --precisely because those moments are often where the greatest
understanding the subject. The studentscommented that this is “a great method of learning in class”, “great activity” and “it would befun to have a couple of different types of setups to analyze”. More than 50% of the studentsindicated that this hands-on application improved their learning experience. Most of the students(more than 80%) would like to use the table in similar hands-on applications in statics. MULTIPLE INTERACTIVE HANDS-ON APPLICATIONS IN STATICSINTRODUCTION[1] Stated that “Learning is a process whereby knowledge is created through the transformationof experience". According to this perspective, the two critical components of the learning processare (1) grasping through feeling and thinking (i.e., concrete experience and
energetic with respectful participation.Evaluating The New Class: Student Response, Faculty Reactions, and Institutional SupportThe course invited the students into ownership of the questions driving its creation and thispaper. After reading the material from NAE’s two major publications on technological literacy,class members reflected on two important interrogations: 1. Are Engineering students Technologically Literate? 2. Does Engineering need Technological Literacy, and does Technological Literacy need Engineering?Their answers arrived after a few days of teamwork in and out of class.Significantly and interestingly, all groups agreed on their first answer: engineers in the currentstatus quo are not technologically literate. However
. 1Introduction Following a meta-analysis of 255 studies on active learning in STEM education, Freeman etal. concluded, “If the experiments analyzed here had been conducted as randomized controlledtrials of medical interventions, they may have been stopped for benefit—meaning that enrollingpatients in the control condition might be discontinued because the treatment being tested wasclearly more beneficial” [1, p. 8413]. Despite the notable educational gains associated withactive learning instructional techniques, the pervasiveness of these approaches remains limited.From observations of over 2,000 STEM classrooms, Stains et al. note that “didactic”instructional practices (i.e., passive lecturing requiring little to no student engagement)dominated
pandemic (AY 2020-21), some of the virtualinstructional tools were used in these in-person courses to improve student engagement. Thepurpose of this paper is to describe those instructional tools and their effectiveness in improvingthe pedagogy as well as the students’ learning using the data collected during the mid-semesterand annual student surveys.1. IntroductionThe development and advancement of technology during the COVID-19 pandemic have been amajor contributor to effective course delivery both in remote and hybrid settings in the AcademicYear (AY) 2020-21. In a short period of time, many instructors learned how to use theappropriate instructional technology not only to teach in remote or hybrid mode, but also to keepthe students engaged
material that makes upthe core of a subject. Thus, for a student first learning the material, a fair and often askedquestion is “where is this material important?” Research has shown that understanding therelevance of learning (i.e. how it connects to reality) plays a large role in student motivation [1].Higher levels of motivation lead to better learning outcomes and instructors are encouraged toincrease the intrinsic motivation of their students by making connections between a course andstudents’ interests [2]. Therefore, an engineering instructor who frequently points outapplications of course content in the real world, and does so with a broad spectrum ofapplications to appeal to students’ wide ranging interests, will continue to promote
Twyman; Benjamin Chambers; Tahsin ChowdhuryVirginia Tech; *Virginia Tech & Universidad EAFITIntroductionPrompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, a group of instructors of the first-year engineering program atVirginia Tech embarked on the challenge of adapting a traditional project-based course to an onlinelearning format. Project-based learning (PjBL) is a widely adopted active learning pedagogical approach,which promotes student critical thinking and problem-solving skills [1], [2]. PjBL has been proven to beeffective among engineering students, especially in the development of both technical and professionalcompetencies among first-year engineering students [3].The transition from in-person to online PjBL required some significant changes
ratherthan its absence among pre-college individuals.1. IntroductionPause and Reflect: What led you to choose your academic major in college? Was it a positiveexperience? The recommendation of a person? A favorite activity, event, or club? Or perhapsthe experience wasn’t positive or memorable at all, but instead, something to overcome?The experiences of children and adolescents are often foundational to their decisions to declare aparticular major in college [1]. Influential experiences become memorable experiences for theirability to pique the children’s interest and maintain that interest over time; it is these memorableexperiences in which we are most interested. Over the past several decades, there has been aninflux of curricular, co-curricular
. 1 Introduction Originally planned as an in-person event, this Rural Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI)Conference was able to successfully restructure the event to be a virtual three-day meeting inSeptember 2020 when the COVID-19 Pandemic limited travel. The Central Arizona College,Arizona State University, University of Arizona, and Rural College collaboratives hosted thevirtual conference (Noravian, A, 2021). In attendance were approximately thirty rural HSIs andemerging HSIs (eHSIs) from both two-year and four-year institutions. Collectively, thisconference convened 70 participants, and 12 facilitators, speakers, and conference coordinators(Noravian, A, 2021). The audience consisted of
result, the primary factor in attracting students to the major and determiningwhich students proceed further in the field. Unfortunately, many students struggle in suchcourses, which exhibit low grades and high fail rates (30% or more) [1]. Research suggests thatthe high fail rate is a result of factors such as poor advising, poor math skills, poor lab design,poor time management, lack of feedback, and low comfort levels in the learning environment.[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]. Even though programming language does not fall into one of these factors,many CS1 instructors have switched from using languages like C++ or Java to using Python inorder to reduce drop out. One reason is the belief that there is a smoother learning curve inPython due to a
anunderrepresented population in engineering, as of 2020 [1]. To tackle this problem, engineeringeducation research (EER) has examined the frameworks and theoretical perspectives to identifyand change systematic hindrances to women pursuing an engineering degree. One such area ofresearch is the study of personal epistemologies in engineering, which have increased inpopularity at the turn of the century [2]–[5]. It is the theory of epistemology that we chose toview the problem of the underrepresentation of women in engineering. In this paper, we seek tounderstand the discourse around epistemologies and women in EER. Specifically, we seek todetermine how women’s epistemologies and their possible mismatch with the paradigmaticepistemologies that guide
related fields. Most of these programs graduate studentswho aim to start their careers in management positions that typically require years of previousexperience. Many students pursue a bachelor’s degree in these programs to acquire knowledgeand skills that lead to attractive management-level employment opportunities post-graduation invarious construction industry sectors. In most cases, a résumé is submitted as the first steptoward gaining employment when students begin their job search in the industry. This studypresents the results of a qualitative content analysis of 204 student résumés collected from theAssociated Schools of Construction (ASC) Region 1 student competition and identifies seven ofthe most common categories listed in the
. IntroductionTechnology’s pervasiveness, its impact, and the economic mobility of its creators demand thatall people drive the future of computing. Nonetheless, computing is dominated by white andAsian, able-bodied, middle-to-upper-class, cisgender men. Even with recent enrollment increasesin undergraduate computing departments (i.e., computer science, computer engineering, etc.) inthe United States, participation of Black, Indigenous, Latine/Hispanic, Native Hawaiian/PacificIslander, women, LGBTQ+, disabled, and economically disadvantaged groups remains low [1]–[3].The effects of this lack of diversity are evident in academic and workplace cultures as well as inbiased/harmful technologies (e.g., facial recognition, predictive policing, public services,healthcare
negatively impact their careers, sexism inscience continues to negatively impact women’s persistence in STEM fields. [1] In other words,despite an understanding that they may be facing specific situational hurdles arising from bias,harassment and discrimination, many women in STEM disciplines continue to be dissuaded fromcareer and leadership goals when targeted by such harms.The NAVIGATE program encompasses a three-day retreat followed several months later by a one-day workshop as well as ongoing support through the use of social media tools such as Twitter,Facebook, and Instagram. To recruit participants, we made an open call to all STEM graduatestudents at the University at Buffalo (UB) who identify as women or non-binary. The programentails
injuries with a 13.5 per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers rate [1]. Safety is recognized as an essential part of professionalpractice, and construction education programs take this into account by requiring occupationalsafety classes in their curriculum.Professional accreditation standards include safety as a mandatory part of their student learningoutcomes. For example, the American Council for Construction Education (ACCE) lists “createa construction project safety plan” as one of the higher-level student learning outcomes [2]. Mostconstruction programs address these requirements by creating stand-alone and dedicated coursesaligned with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s outreach trainingcontent. Initiated in 1971
but different interpretations of expected outcomes. Theseinclude the American Council for Construction Education (ACCE) [1] and ABET (underengineering, technology, and applied science categories) [2].The multi-disciplinary and continuously evolving nature of the construction higher education hasbeen recognized in several studies [3-5]. Liska [3] documented the beginning stages of formalconstruction education structure through the lens of the ACCE history starting in the 1970s.Liska also noted the joint efforts of academia and industry, including the Associated Schools ofConstruction, American Institute of Constructors, Associated General Contractors of America(AGC), Mechanical Contractors Association of America, AGC Education and
Powered by www.slayte.com Students Poor Exam Performance in an Engineering Course after Twenty Months of Online Instruction and Efforts to ImproveAbstractMany universities stopped face-to-face instruction in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemicand forced courses to be online through the summer 2021. In the fall 2021, many students returnedto face-to-face instruction. After the two face-to-face exams, nearly 60% of the class was failinga heat transfer class that is significantly higher than pre-pandemic semesters. The instructor offeredto meet one-on-one with each student and two-thirds of the class did meet with the instructor. Theinstructor learned that many students (1) devoting less than 2 hours per week to the course
used in an online environment.1. IntroductionDuring the 2020/2021 academic year, most of the U.S. universities switched fully to remotelearning, because of the world’s battle against COVID-19 [1]. The sudden switch in the remoteclassrooms has left both the instructors [2] and the students [3, 4] with a lot of challenges to face.It was not until Fall 2021, and with most of the faculty and student body being vaccinated, whenlife started to get back to normal and most universities opened their doors back to in-personclassrooms. Still, some universities had to partially switch back to remote classrooms when theiron-campus COVID-19 cases spiked. It seems like the remote classroom is not vanishing anytimesoon [5], and it’s essential to make sure
scenarioIntroductionAs more social problems are relegated to the domain of engineering, it is becoming increasinglyimportant to train ‘holistic engineers’ [1] who are equipped with systems-thinking skills and whoconsider the macro-ethical implications of their decisions. However, the trends appear to bemoving in the opposite direction. Cech [2] reports on a growing ‘culture of disengagement’amongst engineering students, whose concerns for public welfare appear to decline over thecourse of their education. Similarly, Schiff et al. [3] found that while some engineering studentsarrive in college with a strong sense of personal responsibility, it is often disconnected from theirsense of professional responsibility, where they tend to center micro-ethical rather
section of the course. Asindicated in Table 1, 89 students completed the assignment, for approximately 34 percent of thetotal students who had taken the course. Table 1. Students completing the ConcepTest creation extra credit assignment. # of students completing # total students Semester assignment in the course Fall 2019 14 28 Spring 2020 31 94 Fall 2020 16 46 Spring 2021 28 91With five submitted questions per student, this resulted
engineering-related topics. Furthermore, it shows how these lab-scale models are being used in teaching petroleum courses. In theend, the paper shows the impact of these lab scale models on student engagement and learning by presenting students’feedback on the use of these visualization labs in teaching petroleum engineering courses.1. BackgroundAt Bob L. Herd Department of petroleum engineering, there are many undergraduate Labs used in teaching petroleumengineering classes (Heinze and Gamadi 2019). Here is a list of these Labs.1. The Oilfield Technology Center (OTC) offers students the opportunity to do hands-on work with equipment used for artificial lift, oil treating, gas processing, drilling, and completions. OTC has three test wells
ninth grade through rising twelfth-grade girls. miniGEMS after-school clubs meet weekly to learn block coding using EV3 LEGO Mindstorm robots to competein FIRST LEGO competitions each spring.The mission statement of GEMS is to inspire and empower young girls to be innovative withtheir future in the fields of STEAM. GEMS covers diverse topics of education that the studentswould not normally be exposed to, supporting each other, developing teamwork skills, learninghow to better the community with their knowledge, being creative, and developing self-efficacy[1]. GEMS is unique because it targets girls from under-resourced, underserved,underrepresented communities giving low-income areas of San Antonio, Texas an opportunityto gain experience and
Powered by www.slayte.comHow (Inter)national Engineering Faculty Members Perceive and Teach Creativity: A Cultural Perspective How (Inter)national Engineering Faculty Members Perceive and Teach Creativity: A Cultural Perspective Introduction As a mental capability critical to innovation [1], creativity leads to improvements in oursociety by advancing our technology and productivity [2]. Moreover, as technology andsociety advance, more complex problems emerge [3] that require more creativity to solve.Engineers who must solve these problems, and the engineering educators who trainengineers, widely agree that creativity is important in almost every aspect of
Powered by www.slayte.com The Influence of Disciplinary Background on Peer Reviewers’ Evaluations of Engineering Education Journal ManuscriptsAbstractThis is the first of a series of studies that explore the relationship between disciplinarybackground and the weighting of various elements of a manuscript in peer reviewers’determination of publication recommendations. Research questions include: (1) To whatextent are tacit criteria for determining quality or value of EER manuscripts influenced byreviewers’ varied disciplinary backgrounds and levels of expertise? and (2) To what extentdoes mentored peer review professional development influence reviewers’ EER manuscriptevaluations? Data were collected from 27 mentors and
real- world problem solving within undergraduate curricula. His research interests lie in advanced manufacturing methods. © American Society for Engineering Education, 2022 Powered by www.slayte.com Co-Designing Design Activities with Undergraduate Students1 IntroductionThe literature on expertise and expert performance describes the process of “deliberate practice”as an important mechanism for learning complex cognitive skills [1]. Deliberate practice isdescribed as being an effortful process where individual skills are isolated and practiced withexpert feedback to correct errors in performance. In the realm of engineering, design is one ofthe most