femalestudents impact the cultural climate in each engineering discipline?; 2) What is the male students’perception of the cultural climate for women in their engineering discipline?; 3) Is there adisconnect between the cultural climate female students experience and the perception malestudents hold of the cultural climate?; 4) What can be done to create meaningful changes to thecultural climate for women at the university level? To answer these questions, we designed asurvey and semi-structured interview for female and male engineering students across the threechosen engineering disciplines. Our study is consistent with the literature, finding that women arestill experiencing a chilly cultural climate due to peer tensions, gender discrimination, and
AC 2008-981: THE JOURNEY TO BUILD A 21ST CENTURYFACULTY-LIBRARIAN RELATIONSHIP: A RETROSPECTIVE CASE STUDYREFLECTED WITH CRITERIA 2E AND JJung Oh, Kansas State University-Salina Jung Oh is an Associate Professor of Chemistry at Kansas State University at Salina. She earned her Ph.D. from UCLA and was an ASEE postdoctoral fellow at Naval Air Warfare Center. She was 2004 Wakonse Teaching fellow and 2006 Peer Review of Teaching fellow at K-State. Her interests in scholarship of teaching include cross-curricular innovation.Beverlee Kissick, Kansas State University-Salina Beverlee Kissick is an Emeritus professor and former director of libraries at Kansas State University at Salina. She earned her
as building blocks.Portable USB storage devices are becoming faster and holding larger quantities of data (for ourprototype, we used an eight gigabyte Corsair Flash Voyager GT). Copy-on-write (COW) imagesprovide a mechanism for efficiently storing file systems that are very similar (see Figure 2.) Weinstantiate multiple virtual machines using the same base image, with any changes to each virtualmachine’s file system being stored to a separate file. Copy-on-write semantics can beimplemented either within the virtualization system or within the host operating system’sfilesystem. Our implementation utilizes virtual disk-image COW facilities provided by VMWare.With this, students are free to perform experiments using most computers that support
involvement byencouraging each member of the group to help their peers learn. These identified groups werethen used across the linked courses to accommodate in class learning activities. In addition, tofurther support and encourage academic group activities, team building and the discussion ofbasic team skills were incorporated into the curriculum for First Year Experience (FYE). Thesocial engagement dimension was promoted by scheduling several out-of- class social events. Page 11.225.3Student’s suggestions and input were used to select and structure these social activities.Learning Community ModelThe learning community model used by the CpET program
fit, drawing on best practices and published research [22,23]. After a presentation and facilitated discussion, the eleven summer REU students were askedto “write a paragraph about how you are uniquely well-suited for success in materials science. Itcan be about your skills, interest, experience, perspective, values, or anything else.” Individualinterviews followed the subsequent week, between the developmental, research preparation andconceptualization period and the latter half of the summer, focused on execution. From weeks five through ten, students were tasked with executing their projects, underthe hierarchical mentoring teams of their graduate student and faculty mentor teams, which attimes included postdocs and additional, peer
, manufacturing processesand several other areas of concern.The Department of Labor and the American Society for Training and Developmentresearched the skills employers wanted and published their report, ”Workplace Basics”[4]. In this report, they identified the following as the most common needs: Page 8.537.2 “Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright? 2003, American Society for Engineering Education” 1. Learning to learn 2. 3 R’s (reading, writing, computation) 3. Communications (listening and oral)Other needs listed were
as junior level courses were visited and students were informed about the potential hiring opportunities by the PI. • Student interactions: PI has consistently visited computer labs to join discussions on students’ own research projects. This was an effective way of informing suitable students about the job openings.4. Engagement MethodsFrom the very beginning, students were given clear expectations, i.e. work schedule, goals, andthe research methods. Each student was asked to provide a resume and had a short interviewabout expectations and goals. Students were also asked what they wanted out of their experience.Students were expected to write frequent reports (almost every day starting from the first day ofemployment
benefit industry sponsors by providing them with custom-designed engineering solutions,students with more experience after graduation and valuable experimental data and results.Over the last two years, a new approach to managing the capstone design sequence has beendeveloped. In the previous format, students took the TEET4030 (3-credit, 1-semester) seniordesign course. The sequence is now divided into two courses: TEET4010 (1-credit, 1-semester)& TEET4020 (2-credit, 1-semester).The TEET4010 course has four primary objectives. • To learn the fundamentals of an engineering project management2 and development such as project research3. • To write a project proposal, identify major task involved, task management and
class. I gathered this insight as part of a class titled “Teaching ofBiology”, BIOL 400 at Penn State Harrisburg, which had 17 upper-level students registered inSpring 2020. For the initial several weeks, we discussed as a class student-centered approachesto teaching including using case studies, peer review of writing, and interactive questions duringclass. Students picked one past class that they particularly enjoyed and interviewed the facultymember to ask about how they prepared for the class and about their strategies for supportingstudents’ learning. The students shared the creative strategies with the whole group and later, thenew approaches they suggested based on their collective learning in this course. As part of thisprocess, the
in which the students complete a peer review of another team’s design.Peer reviews require less time of the instructor: no time necessary to create the competitor’sdesign and possibly less time grading as the students review each other. The students have likelyalready been discussing their design projects extensively and may be submitting relativelysimilar designs, so peer review may not generate much of a surprise. A competitor designprepared by the instructor or a teaching assistant can incorporate differences from the students’design that are intended to surprise the students. The next sections describe the assignment, thecompetitor’s design, and the common questions generated by the competitor’s design.Adding Oral Communication to a
submissions for the quizzes, but they were required to earn agrade of 80% in order to obtain credit for completion. Each of the four modules also required anindividual post-module reflection and a peer review in which students rated themselves and theirteammates.Teams were provided resources and guidance through a series of online videos and postedmaterial on the design process. Upper classmen mentoring was a critical aspect of the supportsystem [17], [18]. Not only were teams mentored during their Thursday sessions, each studentwas also emailed at least twice during the week to check if there were follow-up questions and toremind students about upcoming deadlines. Peer-instruction was an essential component of theproject since these topics were
) Locating relevant literature – searching out seminal sources Identifying missing knowledge – determining gaps in community understanding Stating research questions – asking empirically answerable questions Estimating research significance – forecasting value/impact to community Writing measurable outcomes – specifying deliverables from researchObtaining Evidence (to support research) Designing experiments – specifying observable parameters and sampling Selecting methods – determining research procedures Extracting results – analyzing data to produce quality characterizations Replicating results – duplicating experiments and findingsDiscovering (to expand knowledge) Testing hypotheses – discerning significant effects
particulartasks and avoid others (e.g., CAD modeling, report writing), an issue when course outcomes areassessed at the team-level but skills are developed at the individual level.Though students perceive participation on diverse teams as “real world” and thereforebeneficial,9 their behaviors and experiences on diverse teams can be more problematic.10,11 Forexample, students of different genders tend to take different roles on teams, with females morelikely to complete project planning and communication work and males more likely to dotechnical planning and hands-on building.10 It is unclear in the research whether students chooseto take on gender-specific tasks or are pushed by teammates into those roles.Team discussions tend to privilege some students
National Academy of Engineering. The S-STEM program engages students inan interdisciplinary approach to managing nitrogen that incorporates biology, geosciences, andengineering. The program integrated research opportunities, community engagement,coursework, and faculty and peer mentoring strategies to support student success. S-STEMscholars engage in biweekly meetings that include roundtables with scientists and engineers fromacademic, government and industry. Students also engage in presentations of their own thesisprojects, writing workshops, and discussions with community partners.ParticipantsTwelve graduate women students participated in this study. Although the program focuses onSTEM broadly, our participants account for graduate women
classroom, and engaging her students with interactive methods.Dr. Andrea M. Ogilvie P.E., Texas A&M University Andrea M. Ogilvie, Ph.D., P.E. serves as Assistant Dean for Student Success and Assistant Professor of Instruction at Texas A&M University. Prior to her current appointment, Andrea served as Director of the Equal Opportunity in Engineering Program at The University of Texas at Austin. Her expertise includes: project management, program assessment, university-industry partnerships, grant writing, and student development in the co-curricular learning environment with a special focus on recruiting, supporting, and graduating students from groups historically underrepresented in engineering. Since 2014
students are less familiar with the role of instructors building a lab experience.Secondary outcomes of the project include demonstration of professional ethics and teamworkwith peer assessment.This paper will review the experimental design projects implemented by the seniors, requiringthe students to perform independent research and hopefully encourage lifelong learning. Anumber of ME program outcomes are supported by this activity and the assessment methodsused and results gathered will be discussed.IntroductionThe Mechanical Engineering faculty at Western Kentucky University have used the developmentand implementation of professional experiences to provide consistent and properly assessedinstruction for students pursuing the new baccalaureate
the students in the pilot section are enumerated below: 1. Far and away the most enjoyable aspects of the course were exposure to guest speakers and getting to know engineering faculty and students in a small-class setting. 2. Students preferred to meet once a week for the entire year because they missed the interaction in spring and felt there wasn’t enough content to sustain meeting twice a week. 3. When asked about cohorting the course with math and assigning peer mentors to each section, students were indifferent. They made it very clear that study sessions and other out of class events should be completely optional. (It is interesting to note that many of the students participating in the focus
studentsAbstractThe job of a college engineering faculty member is multifaceted. Faculty are not only expected to teachand conduct research but also to write proposals, consult, network, engage in administrative duties, andthe list continues. The relative importance and time allocated to these different functions vary accordingto the nature and focus of the institution and the interests of the faculty. However, engineering graduatestudents aspiring to careers in academe are not usually trained in the multiple facets of the profession. Asa result, when they become faculty members they often struggle to find ways to balance the parallel andmany times competing demands of these functions.This paper examines the professional development plans of six engineering
begiven to the designing group and included: good things about the game, how it could be modifiedto improve design, future concerns for game play, and where they identified the action/reactionrelationship occurring. Consultants gave their feedback to the designers of the game and Iprovided class time to make modifications. Students set up games on the final day and had theopportunity to play peers designs. As they played they identified the action/reaction for eachgame, where potential and kinetic energy occurred, and any forms of energy they could identify.Post attitude surveys were administered just before completion of final task.Survey Results and DiscussionI analyzed the Friday Institutes’ surveys1 using an unpaired t-test in Excel and
learn a newtopic from online videos. Students complete a JiTT quiz before lecture for assessment, and toensure they watch the videos. Questions are reused from CON homework sets, but theassignments are less complex: ten to twenty MC and up to three free response questions. UnlikeCON, the instructor varies the daily topic based on JiTT results. JiTT quizzes are worth 5% of astudent’s overall grade. During lecture, students apply knowledge with peer-instruction. We usepair programming, a software engineering paradigm where one person is the driver and the otheris the navigator. The driver focuses on the problem and writes/codes. The navigator reads ahead,manages time, and validates. The driver and navigator get the same grade. The
the Dissertation Institute, a one-week workshop each summer funded by NSF, to help underrepresented students develop the skills and writing habits to complete doctorate degrees in engineering. Across all of her research avenues, Dr. Matusovich has been a PI/Co-PI on 12 funded research projects including the NSF CAREER Award with her share of funding be ingnearly $2.3 million. She has co-authored 2 book chapters, 21 journal publications and more than 70 conference papers. She has won several Virginia Tech awards including a Dean’s Award for Outstanding New Faculty, an Outstanding Teacher Award and a Faculty Fellow Award. She holds a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Cornell University, an M.S. in Materials Science
classes, highlightingcourses with applications and problem solving, providing advisors, and developing a sense ofcommunity can all contribute to retaining budding female engineers6. The WECE report recommended an increase in efforts and opportunities to participate in on-campus community building and also development in other interests and skills in the first twoyears. Freshmen and sophomore years find women most likely to actually leave engineering.One-third of the leavers stated negative aspects of their school’s climate (e.g., competition, lackof support, and discouraging faculty and peers); while sources of encouragement mentioned wereparents, support activities (e.g., study groups, student organizations) and having internships andresearch
model usesdeviations (greater than or less than) from the centroid, essentially the middle point for allvalues. The BSTAM software can do this by writing the same constraint twice, first goal forpenalizing below the target and a second goal for penalizing above the target. These twoformulations are essentially similar since penalizing team levels above or below a target valuewill tend to bring the teams close to the average or target value essentially accomplishing thesame objective.Current techniques for solving binary variables and a quadratic objective function create difficultproblems in optimization, as pointed out in the literature (Bhadury et al., 2000)5. The BSTAMsource code is written in Visual Basic for Applications within Microsoft
Auckland. At the time of this writing, theproject for the 2020 implementation of the Capstone course has not been selected.2.2 Team Formation and Initial Communications to StudentsAbout halfway through Semester 1, students are given a brief overview of the Capstone projectand begin forming themselves into teams using a specific software application with the guidanceof Capstone course coordinators. In the Capstone Project, students generally work in teams of nine(with a few exceptions depending on the total enrolment). Experience from a trial year and twoyears of large classes in the Capstone course has shown that with six major specialisations withinCivil Engineering, a team of nine works well. Teams of eight are workable, but if a
working towards incorporating writing assignments that enhance students’ critical thinking capabilities. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019Abstract In this paper, the author stresses the importance of certain sophisticated mathematicaltechniques that undergraduate students utilize to analyze and solve a certain specific engineeringproblem such as the design of a Suspension Bridge or the construction of a High VoltageTransmission Tower. The importance of a fourth order Runge Kutta Algorithm technique, theneed for Newton Raphson Method and the properties of a Catenary Curve are stressed in thissenior level engineering technology course. The Runge Kutta technique is utilized to solve adesign
written in Verilog HDL, are open-source,and are freely available. To support the hardware components, a unified assembler, cycleaccurate emulator, and board interface software package is included. The software is written inJava, works on Linux, Windows, and Mac OS, is open-source, and is freely available. The PLP Page 24.87.3hardware and software components are licensed under the General Public License version 3 toencourage open access and contribution. PLP can be downloaded free of cost from its homepagehttp://plp.okstate.edu. Figure 2 shows the current homepage at the time of writing this paper. Anew homepage, hosted at http
], which introducessome active programming teaching methods. Portela employed four approaches to develop theinstructional plan, namely: BYOD, flipped classroom, gamification, and using the skills ofindividual students to solve posed problems. Tewolde presented a method for improving studentmotivation in a microcontroller-based embedded systems course to enhance students’ role inactive learning [10]. The method consists of three tools, namely: laboratory assignments forpractical hands-on activities, “peer teaching” techniques, and self-proposal, which enablesindividual creativity. For some complex and difficult to understand courses such as programmingalgorithms-related subjects, Garcia et al. [11] proposed a method in the form of
instruction in their freshman Englishcomposition course and standards and patent searching in their junior engineering design course.Students also receive ad hoc information fluency instruction if a course has a research paper andthe instructor requests information fluency instruction from the library.ProblemA review of lab reports from the Fall 2016 semester of the Fluid/Thermal Laboratory revealedthe following problems in student work: • Trouble differentiating between the different types of sources, including the use of non-peer-reviewed materials, such as websites; • Lack of assessment of quality of reference material; • Lack of familiarity with how to use technical papers; • Few references when writing
appropriate ways15. In a study comparing writing rubrics, Morozov concluded that students viewed the more detailed and extensive rubric more positively than less-extensive rubrics16. In this study, an effective rubric model emphasized skills, elaboration of skill, and critical thinking. One recent study compared the reliability of two writing rubrics across three different settings and reported moderate reliability for most skills represented in the two rubrics17. Multiple studies address the effect of Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) on student writing18, 19, 20 . CPR involves the electronic evaluation of student writing by their peers. None of these studies specifically address rubric
indicate that experience actually breedsineptitude: “92% of peer reviewers deteriorated during 14 years of study in the quality andusefulness of their reviews (as judged by editors at the time of decision).”34 A 2009 internationalstudy of more than 4,000 reviewers and authors reveals that while 81% of study participantsthink that detecting plagiarism is part of a reviewer’s role, only 38% believe that they are able todo so.35Because plagiarism is a growing problem, peer reviewers should be responsible for more thancursory comments on content and writing style; they should also investigate sources to verifyauthorial honesty, provided they are given access to the online tools necessary to accomplishthis. This additional responsibility for volunteer