undergraduate teaching assistantships in the flipped classroom, anenvironment in which TAs take on a more important role than in a traditional classroom. Flippedlearning builds upon active learning, a constructivist approach to learning that emphasizeslearning by doing [18-20]. Active learning is based on the principles that students are activelyresponsible for their own learning within a collaborative process with peers and tutors [21].Flipped learning takes this further by moving the passive and individual-focused parts of STEMlearning – the first introduction to the material – out of the classroom entirely. This frees classtime to be devoted to interactive activities, such as problem-based learning, that reinforce coursematerial without sacrificing
opportunities while reducing the need for external employment. • Increase students’ engineering self-efficacy. • Increase recruitment of aerospace and industrial engineering students. • Encourage students to pursue advanced degrees. • Increase student retention in engineering.The ASPIRE program strengthens and supports students through a program of mentoring,networking, and academic design. The primary features of the program include continuousmentoring of all ASPIRE students by peers, faculty, and industry representatives; four face-to-face interactions with all ASPIRE students, mentors, and faculty per semester; and enrollment incommon courses.A total of 36 undergraduate ASPIRE Fellows will have been directly supported
the semester. To varying degrees, these weekly meetings also serveas peer mentoring and community building activities among the teaching teams assigned to eachcourse. There is little communication between graduate students assigned to different courses,even among Graduate Teaching Fellows. Written, qualitative faculty evaluations were veryuseful to workshop leaders, while quantitative student evaluations using a standardized formwere not reflective of the responsibilities of workshop leaders. Recommendations includeexpanding the faculty teaching mentor role, redesigning the student feedback form, and addingsocial activities across course assignments.I. IntroductionThose holding academic faculty positions within a college or university are
within the scope of the syllabus for the course. In this study, a courserepeated over three years was considered. Students were directed to undertake engineeringdesigns in specialized areas of transportation engineering, technology and management. Designtopics related to these areas ranged from Flexible Pavements, Rigid Pavements, Asphalt PavingTechnology and Pavement Rehabilitation, to Signalized Traffic Intersections. These topicscovered not only conventional transportation systems but also intelligent transportation systems.The students’ presentations were peer-graded.The extent of improvement in design, discovery, and learning was documented extensively byapplying appropriate statistical tests. Assessment, grading formula and results are
with many local community agencies.Dr. Bimal P. Nepal, Texas A&M University Dr. Bimal Nepal is an Associate Professor in the Industrial Distribution Program at Texas A&M Univer- sity. His research interests include integration of supply chain management with new product development decisions, distributor service portfolio optimization, pricing optimization, supply chain risk analysis, lean and six sigma, and large scale optimization. He has authored 30 refereed articles in leading supply chain and operations management journals, and 40 peer reviewed conference proceedings articles in these areas. He has B.S. in ME, and both M.S. and Ph.D. in IE. He is a member of ASEE, INFORMS, and a senior member of IIE.Dr
populations, i.e. students who tend to be first generation, minorities, and/orcommuters. These universities encounter similar challenges in first-year retention and graduationrates, especially in the STEM disciplines. As they strive to improve the first year engineeringand/or mathematics student experience at their campuses, they have engaged in differentapproaches; including Peer Led Team Learning (PLTL), formation of an Engineering LearningCommunity (ELC), and engaging students in outreach as STEM Ambassadors. Incorporatingthese individual strengths with new activities that will be shared across institutions, the team iscurrently embarking on a multi-year research project to uncover how students develop STEMidentity in an urban context, identify
. The images shown in this paper were acquired with a Zeiss EVO-50 scanningelectron microscope and an Asylum Research MFP-3D atomic force microscope.Bridges between the classroom and undergraduate researchBridge 1 – Students learn to read and comprehend technical papers from theprimary literature through a novel writing assignment – the NanoTracts paperThe process of reading and acquiring an in-depth understanding of peer-reviewed articlesfrom the scientific literature is an essential research skill that is out of the comfort zone ofmost undergraduate students. These skills are developed with time and practice, andproficiency ameliorates potential for success with research endeavors over their futurecareers. A term project has been incorporated
project and at the project's completion. The reports provide practice of oraland written communication skills. It often happens that teams become more competitive afterthe mid-project report, each wanting to develop a finished product better than what the otherteams seem to be developing. Team members submit a peer rating form for themselves andother members of their team as part of the final project report. Individual grades are assigned byweighting the team's grade for the project using the peer rating form results. The course isentirely based on the projects; no written examinations are given.GoalsThe goals of the course are for each student: • To learn C# and gain experience with the FCL (Framework Class Library) and the .NET platform
achievement test at the end of the academic year includedgrammar, writing, and an oral lecture presentation in English. Out of the 50 faculty, 37persevered through the whole program and showed significant improvement in Englishproficiency. Information about this program spread around the university by word of mouth,and many more faculty members showed interest for the academic year 2012-13 with anenrollment of 170 faculty (out of 150 planned) and 15 study groups. After one semester, theprogram has achieved 100% retention with all members still attending the courses.This paper describes the program created at Kazan National Research TechnologicalUniversity to improve the English language skills of their faculty and will focus on analyzingthe academic
Paper ID #19042Energy Science and Engineering Graduate Education at Tokyo TechProf. Jeffrey Scott Cross, Tokyo Institute of Technology Jeffrey S. Cross received a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from Iowa State University in 1992. He has worked in Japan at Fujitsu Lab Ltd., National Institute for Inorganics Materials, and at Tokyo Tech for over 20 years and is fluent in Japanese. Jeffrey is Prof. in the School of Environment and Society, Dept. of Transdisciplinarity Science and Engineering and graduate coordinate for the Energy Science and Engineering Major. He teaches online courses on academic writing and on education
learning. 5 4.75 I can apply what I learned in this course beyond the classroom. 4.25 4.25 I can apply what I learned in this course to my job or career goals. 5 4.5 Student Perception of Learning Mean 4.79 4.47 Figure 4: Student Assessment on LearningThe end-of-course survey reveals the Trifecta of Engagement framework greatly facilitatedstudents' engagement with course contents, peers and instructor. Students took a more active partin their learning process. They gained significant knowledge about the subject and their ability tothink critically, to do research, to write and speak has
scale items from an end-of-semester course evaluationsurvey, and (3) observations conducted from two assessment specialist, serving as externalevaluators.At the end of the semester, students (N=64) were administered a project evaluationquestionnaire, which included several open-ended questions about the project and provided ussome useful insights about students’ perceptions, learning outcomes, and satisfaction with thisreal-world design experience.In the project evaluation questionnaire, students were asked: “In your own words, how wouldyou describe this project to your parents or peers?” Overall, in reviewing students’ responses, itwas evident that students highly valued the real-world nature of the project as they described thevalue of having
interact with other students around their table and solvedthe problems collectively and this greatly facilitated their peer-to-peer learning process. Inaddition to this they interacted with the instructor and TAs on an individual basis. Thecollaborative peer-to-peer communication and individual interactions with the instructors and theTAs greatly enhanced their learning process. The instructor gave a 10 min lecture and discussionat the end of the class discussing the solutions to problems solved during class time. Thesolutions to these problems were posted on the course webpage after each class. Also, to measurestudents’ knowledge and learning abilities, other assessments besides the pre-quiz and class-quizsuch as research paper writing and lab
that students are self-guided through partof the instruction. Lastly, class time is organized in such a way that the instructor spends overhalf of the time working directly with individuals and small groups. This gives the students anopportunity to have explanations individually catered to their level of understanding, as well asplenty of time for peer and instructor assistance with debugging.The course initially ran under the new model in Spring, 2013. The course ran for 15 weeks andhad 37 students split into two different sections. There were no teaching assistants. Feedbackfrom the students indicated that they benefitted greatly from the course design. Improvementsfor the second iteration of the new course model, which will occur in Spring
have long struggled to create inclusive and equitable learningenvironments, and many engineering administrators remain skeptical about the benefits of suchinitiatives [1]. Thus, most of such work has been spearheaded by administrative groups such asdepartments of Diversity and Inclusion and Gender Studies who typically seek to promote equitythrough changes to broader institutional culture [2-4]. Student classroom experiences, however,remain relatively neglected and thus such efforts rarely inspire STEM faculty buy-in.Consequently, students from historically underrepresented groups, especially students perceivedto have lower social capital than their peers, may still face disparities in their classroomexperiences, disparities that may include
. The learning communities mitigated risk for faculty.Across all of our programs, there were signs that learning community participation reduced the Page 26.1128.12risks that faculty associate with instructional change. Peer discussion and feedback helped earlyadopters of change to feel more secure; as one member of the University of WashingtonEngineering Writing Brown Bag remarked, “It was helpful just hearing some confirmation thatmy ideas for teaching weren’t crazy”. And the exchange of teaching narratives and resourcesamong the community helped all community members to see instructional change as worthwhile,and within faculty’s
lessons and submitting two ungradedassignments that included a one-page career goal paper and a one-page resume. The class wastaught in a large classroom space to sections of 75-90 students and was presented in a traditionallecture style format. This course was designed to introduce graduate engineering students to theUniversity’s Cooperative Education Program and focused on developing skills in managingworkplace expectations and requirements, resume construction, interviewing, and professionalethics. Employer panels were sometimes used to explore employment opportunities within thefields of engineering. Peer-based discussion panels allowed students to share stories about howthey found their job and their experience as an employee. The stated
successfully used in many disciplines, including CS. Peer instructionincludes both pre-work and a sequence of activities conducted during class. The in-classactivities are a mini-lecture by the instructor, solo voting on a multiple choice question, groupdiscussion, group voting, and then an instructor-led class discussion. Zingaro et al. (2013)investigate the role of pre-class preparatory work, specifically the reading quiz assigned tostudents to complete prior to class. The reading quiz has 2-3 questions based on content andone open-response question asking about areas of confusion, difficulty, or interest. The contentquestions are graded in 4 categories: blank, incomplete, complete but incorrect, and correct.The authors noted a submission rate of
) line-by-line coding for cross-comparison, 3) identifying common experiencesfor initial themes, 4) supplementary review of transcripts for confirmation of themes anddevelopment of a proposed model/initial theory, and 5) memo-writing to acknowledge the ideasand thoughts related to the context of the experiences of the participants. While we have listedthe steps in grounded theory here, this was a non-linear process that involved comparingstatements within and between interviews and checking one’s ideas with the data.5Throughout the interviewing and analysis process, Julie and Stacey met regularly to discussinterpretations, salient themes and theoretical gaps in understanding. Periodic peer debriefingwith the Stephanie helped hone the wording of
, students are exposed to such topics as ethics in the workplace, global issues inengineering practice, engineering economy review, proposal and report writing, presentationcoaching, sustainable design, kinematics and suspension highlights as well as other topics ofgeneral interest to seniors working on any design team. The course also includes two 1-hour and Page 11.306.3fifteen minute “laboratory” meetings. In these meetings the individual project teams meet andwork through project business that include design group formation and design sessions, designissues, progress presentations, purchase requests, publicity and fund raising, etc.This
during each summer (from late May to early July). Each student completes threelaboratory experiments on a Saturday, then writes them up for submission two weeks later. Thelast laboratory session, for ELET Laboratory IV, may be offered as a new course, ELET 3641Senior Design Project, in the last year of the program. We anticipate requiring at least twofaculty members and one teaching assistant on each Saturday. Two sections will be offeredsimultaneously on the UNC Charlotte campus on four Saturdays. With the cooperation of Wake Technical College, two similar special sections oflaboratory sessions are being planned for the students at the Raleigh site to preclude their havingto make the 3-hour drive to Charlotte. A UNC Charlotte Engineering
motivation for being a leader.Again, comparison yields a shift in perception. Upon completion of the course, the studentscompleted a course evaluation survey to aid the course developer in determining if the course ismeeting the university’s leadership education goals. In addition, the students completed a peerassessment of leadership skills and characteristics near the beginning and at the conclusion of thecourse. The peer assessment yields some shifts in leadership development. Finally, as a finalassessment at the conclusion of the final team course project, the students completed a peerperformance evaluation, and the results are reported.1. IntroductionEntrepreneurshipLawrence Technological University (LTU) has offered students entrepreneurial
studying computing when in a room with neutrally coded ob-jects like nature paintings and dictionaries rather than objects that were traditionally associatedwith computer science [2]. This work on ambient belonging will be classified with the Garvin-Doxas paper as Environmental Belonging, or the effect of peers or the learning environment onbelonging outcomes of students. This is more difficult to measure as our results overlap with a 2019 2019 2020 2020 Variable Number % Number % Gender Male 103 70.0% 79 66.3% Female 44 30.0
still lacking in engineering is communication and professionaldevelopment courses. Whether students strive to be in industry or academia, effectivecommunication skills are highly sought after and often a requirement. As students transition fromundergraduate courses to graduate courses, the amount of writing and conveyance of data shiftsdrastically; however, even after twenty years, there still lacks the requirement for formalinstruction of these soft skills. Students have identified that writing is stressful and, thereforecould benefit from more formal instruction in scientific writing.10, 11Teaching Assistantship While formal instruction of professional development and communication is not requiredin many institutions, 36 out of the 100
on First Doctoral Degree Milestones Work In Progress: Bridging the Gap in Doctoral Engineering Education: Critically Investigating Factors Influencing Performance Outcomes on First Doctoral Degree MilestonesAbstract It is well documented that Black students tend to enroll and complete engineering Ph.D.sat disproportionately lower rates than their peers. What is less understood are the most criticalfactors influencing their success at critical junctures in the Ph.D. program. Existing scholarshipon the socialization processes embedded in pursuing a graduate degree are based on the premisethat transitioning into a hyper-specialized area is challenging. One of the most challengingaspects of
should change as a result of thisexperience [3]. The lessons learned in online education cannot be understated, and while it iscritical that while faculty work on improving their online, they must also focus on the benefits ofin-person learning for when they are in the classroom. In-person learning has many benefits:improved learning outcomes, equity in learning, personalized attention, and easier access toresources. One of the largest benefits of in-person learning is the opportunity of socialinteraction. The impact of this pandemic is expected to affect social skills of those who werestudents during that time [4]. In-person learning provides opportunities for students to socializewith their peers and build relationships. It is important that
-of-class assignments and most involvereflective writing activities. Prior to submitting their essay, students exchanged papers andprovided one-another with a peer review. Essays were revised based on peer-feedback and thenwere turned-in for grading. Students were not aware that their essays would be analyzed relativeto the nine motivation areas.During a review of the essay produced by the first cohort of students, the grader generated a listof the most common motivations to the prompt. A total of ten different motivations wereidentified in the first administration. Those same ten motivations have been used in allsubsequent essay reviews. The ten response areas used were: Challenging, Family/mentor influence, Hands-on
achievedstandard format project reports. this outcome. Table 2: Summary of Assessment ResultsConclusionsThe three-week geotechnical project developed by the author for the ItE course successfullyachieved the desired student learning outcomes related to geotechnical engineering. There wereno significant challenges associated with the project; however, to improve student writing, anadditional day could be added to the project to provide opportunities for peer review of draftreports.The project provided many benefits beyond the achievement of the desired learning outcomesincluding low cost, easy course preparation, significant student interest and engagement, andimproved student
understanding of DC motor control and how to work with them (power, speed, torque, and tradeoffs using gearing) • Describe the many subdisciplines of ECE • Design autonomous robots that respond to sensor inputs and use motors/actuators to accomplish simple tasks • Assess the factors affecting the reliability and repeatability of the programmed tasks (How consistently does it work? How well does it work? Why?) • Work in teams, including: o Fair delegation of tasks o Communicate with peers (i.e., other team members) o Assess the performance of team members o Create a realistic time-line for a design project and stick to it or assess why it didn’t work o
attend monthlyluncheons with their mentors to talk about issues that concern them. In addition, all tenure trackwomen are invited to attend brown bags lunches in which topics such as how to negotiate the Page 11.647.4challenges of maternity leave, grant writing, and progress towards tenure are discussed. Thebrown bags provide a venue for peer mentoring among women faculty.Participants report that they find support from the program in ways that departments cannot orare not providing. Participants mention that being able to meet other pre-tenure women outsidetheir department helps them to discuss and solve problems and to feel less isolated. In