philosophy. 11. Respect your extended network of partners and suppliers by challenging them and helping them improve. 12. Go and see for yourself to thoroughly understand the situation (genchi genbutsu). 13. Make decisions slowly by consensus, thoroughly considering all options; implement decisions rapidly. 14. Become a learning organization through relentless reflection (hansei) and continuous improvement (kaizen).One may notice that the principles do not directly specify a manufacturing process, but rather,they specify guidelines for company culture. There is a focus on three concepts throughout theseprinciples, particularly: respect for people, continuous improvement, and visual control [15].The first principle, in
their playground equipment models and test their designs with miniature wheelchairs. All initial designs have room for improvement; groups iterate and continue testing, trying to improve their designs. Day 8: Design Challenge - Peer Feedback How can we improve our designs by giving and receiving peer feedback? Student groups self-evaluate their own design and design process, then pair up with other groups to offer feedback, help troubleshoot, and brainstorm solutions to common issues. Day 9: Design Challenge - Final Test & Review What can we learn by looking across all our design attempts? Groups reflect on their design attempts, and the teacher facilitates a whole class discussion comparing across designs. Student groups complete their
their incoming graduate students. In this paper, focusing on the 5-week version,we outline the initial format and structure of the course, discuss the curriculum and studentengagement during the first-two implementations of the course, and highlight some of the earlylessons learned and plans for improvement from this effort. We begin with an introduction to theframework we are using to guide the development of the GSSME course.The Academic Plan ModelThis paper is structured around Lattuca and Stark’s (2015) model of an Academic Plan inSociocultural Context, which we used to guide our reflection on the initial implementation of theGSSME course and opportunities for improvement. The Academic Plan model was developed toprovide a framework through
the ECE major. 5. Facilitate student interest in robotics.Theoretical Motivation The theoretical motivation that drove course redesign was centered on evidence-basedpedagogy pointing towards the benefits of project-based learning. Fundamentally, Kolb’sExperiential Learning Model asserts that a cycle of concrete experience, reflective observation,abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation results in higher student learning [10].Implementation of Kolb’s method along with the integration of theory and hands-on practice inand introductory engineering course at Harvey Mudd College saw a statistically significant gainin student learning and an increased enthusiasm amongst female students [5]. To incorporatethese theories, our
reflected in her publications, research, teaching, service, and mentoring. More at http://srl.tamu.edu and http://ieei.tamu.edu.Dr. Jacques C. Richard, Texas A&M University Dr. Richard got his Ph. D. at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1989 and a B. S. at Boston University, 1984. He was at NASA Glenn, 1989-1995, worked at Argonne National Lab, 1996-1997, taught at Chicago State University, 1997-2002. Dr. Richard is an Instructional Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineer and NSF REU Program Director at Texas A&M since 1/03. His research focuses on computational plasma model- ing using particle methods with spectral methods on Maxwell and Boltzmann equations. He has applied the lattice Boltzmann method to study
reflective thinking that occurs in communication andcollaboration with others [5]. This is an organic learning process of observation and guidedpractices with an experienced individual who acts as a mentor. Thus, it is incumbent upon us aseducators and researchers to investigate the role of mentoring in the development of soft skills.This paper introduces an interdisciplinary model in a two-semester afterschool program, wherethe undergraduate engineering students and mathematics teacher candidates teamed up to serveas mentors for a group of high school students in an after-school robotics club. We will explainthe pedagogical rationale of the mentorship approach and that the design of our interdisciplinarymodel is a particularly effective option to
the workshops. 100% of the scouts learned some/alot of Biomedical Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering and Science, 98.3% of the scoutslearned some/a lot of Electrical Engineering, while 96.6% of the scouts learned some/a lot ofComputer Science. Scouts also reflected that they enjoyed the experience very much. 88.0% ofthe scouts really liked Biomedical Engineering workshop, 87.7% of the scouts really likedElectrical Engineering workshop, 93.3% of the scouts really liked Manufacturing Engineeringworkshop, 87.5% of the scouts really liked Computer Science, and 100% of the scouts reallyliked Science. Students also found the workshops increased their interest in STEM courses.RAMP ProgramAn entrance survey and an exit survey were conducted to
offeredonline at Hampton University. Student participation in the survey was not required by the in-structor but was optional and completely anonymous for the students.Class Delivery Mode: The teaching of Chemical Engineering Calculations (CME 201- 4 credit), ChemicalEngineering Thermodynamics (CME 307 - 4credit), and Unit Operation Laboratory (CME 411 -2 credits) during COVID-19 was done entirely online, with Blackboard being the deliveryvehicle for instructions. We made use of both synchronous and asynchronous learning methodswhile teaching remotely.Technology Employed: The course involved completing both independent (e.g. reading material, viewing onlinecontent, reflecting on information) asynchronously and dependent (e.g. online interactions
additionalsupports be put in place to help students persist in STEM2-5. This paper will describe theprogram's recruitment strategies, the practices that have been most effective, and thedemographics of the successful applicants. In addition, the paper explores the evolution of cohortcommunity building efforts, starting with mostly faculty-led and planned events to events led bya consultant. Improvement in sense of community has been reflected in the evaluation reports,and selected supporting evidence will be shared from the reports.RecruitmentThis S-STEM grant was awarded in fall of 2018 with the goal of supporting at-risk studentsthrough multiple academic pathways, with our definition of at-risk as students who start atCampbell in a math class before pre
currently completing a PhD in Engineering Education under Dr. Dringenberg. His research interests include exploring ideological beliefs as a reflection of tech culture. In his free time, he enjoys watching hockey, writing about programming languages, and playing video games.Dr. Emily Dringenberg, Ohio State University Dr. Dringenberg is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Education at Ohio State Uni- versity. She holds a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (Kansas State ’08), a M.S. in Industrial Engineering (Purdue ’14) and a Ph.D. in Engineering Education (Purdue ’15). Her team, Beliefs in Engineering Re- search Group (BERG), utilizes qualitative methods to explore beliefs in engineering. Her research
demonstratedto improve collegiate graduates’ entry-level starting salaries, level of initial position, and jobresponsibilities [10] [11] [12]. The authors discuss the importance of experiential experiences inthe formation of professionalism in RS students [13]. To establish a reflective element withineach RS student experience, each fall the students come together for a one-hour seminar to talkand write about their journey and to continue learning about methods of growing their supportweb with university professors and staff [14].The RS students selected for this program implementation were typically residential applicantsof a low-socioeconomic status (SES) and that selected an under-represented minorityrace/ethnicity in their database entry. There was
barriers to URM and FGC students. A more in-depth discussion of thesefindings can be found in [3] and [11].Finding 2 – The organizational cultures influenced participants’ perceptions of changepossibilities related to diversity and inclusion, and their role in change. Analysis of the post-design session interviews revealed the influence that the disciplinary/organizational cultures ofboth ECE and BME had on (1) the effectiveness of design thinking toward culture change, and(2) where change occurred (e.g., individual versus systemic levels). Reflecting a more limiteddesign culture within the school, the stakeholders in the ECE design sessions recognized andacknowledged limitations in their ability to make large-scale change within ECE. As such
material is consistent with their future career (Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield &Eccles, 2000). The interest component is based on how students perceive course topics andinstructional methods, interesting (Hidi & Ann Renninger, 2006; Renninger, Hidi, Krapp, &Renninger, 2014). Further, the success component is formed on expectancy for success(Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). This component reflects students’ self-efficacy aboutthe coursework (Bandura, 1986). The caring component is based on students believes thatinstructors care about their success and well-being (Noddings, 1992).Motivation can be perceived as a student’s intention and engagement in learning as student’saction (Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie, 2012). In other
these experiential learning experiences. The SE department is within a large, private university which is committed to experiential learning within its undergraduate engineering curriculum. The university has one of the oldest cooperative education programs in the country and firmly believes in learning through doing. This presentation will describe how an experiential learning model is used to improve learning and accelerate needed academic cultural changes within the department. The experiential learning methodology is based on an existing educational model which includes four basic stages; active experiences, reflective observations, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. This experiential learning model is used
stories in STEM and the changing demographics of our institutionwhile being situated in a community that reflects the diversity represented throughout thecountry Sue and Kathy set out to start a pilot program called the Women’s Research andMentoring program (WRAMP) to introduce STEM to women, specifically women of color,pursuing a career in a STEM field. To address representation and engage our diversecommunity of students a multitiered mentorship program was created. The program hadthree levels of women in engaged in education, high school women from the localcommunity, undergraduate women at WPI serving as mentor and mentee and graduatewomen at WPI engaged in research at WPI. All students were engaged in research at WPIwith high school women
socioeconomically just engineering education. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Week of Action: #EngineersShowUp as intersectional advocatesIntroductionIn this roundtable and open panel discussion, members of the engineering education communitywill reflect upon their experiences during a planned week of action that took place February 23rd– 29th as part of a larger project on addressing root causes of inequity. This event follows aplanning and organizing workshop held at the 2019 CoNECD conference, and continued effortssince then to meet virtually and plan towards collective actions to build awareness and shiftnarratives. Through these meetings and open-ended
and exploring the sensor response for different relevant testparameters such as sensor (probe) size and characteristics such as frequency and type (absolutevs. differential) as well as test material properties (see the example for ET in Figure 1). In thisexercise, the students are first asked to predict the sensor (probe) response (based on what theyhave learned in the lectures and reading materials) and then calculate the response using thesimulation software (Figure 2). Afterwards, the students are asked to analyze the response inlight of their initial predictions and reflect on any mismatch. In this first exercise, the studentsonly study the probe physics and not the probe interaction with a flaw, which will be explored inthe second
“third nature” [6]. These traits build on biogenic [who you are] andsociogenic [how you are doing] [6] to make us who we are. As described by Kolb & Kolb [13],“because of our hereditary equipment [biogenic, who you are], our particular life experiences[sociogenic, how you are doing], we develop a preferred process of learning” [13]. Individuallearning style refers to style or learning methods used in the process of learning. Thinking,processing information and acquiring knowledge are processes that differ from student to student[14]. Fleming and Mills [15] suggested four modalities and the related questionnaire that seemedto reflect the experiences of the students in learning: Visual Learners (internalize and synthesizeinformation when it is
same lab) worked together on the same mini project.After the boot camp, teachers joined their research group in pairs and spent the remaining fourweeks working on a research project with a mentoring team consisting of a computer sciencefaculty member and graduate students. Weekly social events were planned and attended by allparticipants and research group members. Weekly research seminars gave teacher participants achance to reflect on what they learned each week and to report their progress and next steps tothe entire cohort of teachers and research lab members. During the six-week experience, teachersalso worked regularly with a science education faculty member to develop student-centeredcurricular materials using a lesson plan
concept or how to proceed, students reflected thatEOEs stepped in to help them figure out how to move forward, providing encouragement andsupport throughout. Their comments suggested that the goal of the EOEs was to ensure thatstudents were successful on a project, even if they had failed attempts along the way. Studentsfelt supported by EOEs throughout the design challenges and perceived that EOEs worked tomake the experience as positive as possible for them.Table 5. Sample Student Statements Related to Fostering Student Agency, Understanding, andProject SuccessSub-theme Student StatementsStudent Agency They [EOE] didn't do it for me. They gave me some directions so then I could figure it out... not every
possible.(Table 1). Students were then 3. If you were to describe your cohort to someone that has no experiencesasked to reflect on their midpoint with your cohort, what would you say? Please be as specific as possible.written responses and provide any 4. Describe how your cohort functions on assignments related your undergraduate research project, such as the concrete mix design and labamendments to these responses report. Be as specific as possible.during an interview with the 5. How do you think others perceive you in the cohort? Be as specific as possible.researcher at the
mentor has the right attributes, which include: [34] a. An underlying helping, teaching-learning, reflective, and desire-to-mentor nature. b. Identity as a coach/sponsor/role model. c. Character that is respectful, tolerant, non-judgmental, and trustworthy. d. Ability to provide emotional and psychological support. e. Academic knowledge, which enables them to connect the mentee with resources on campus for academic success.Some characteristics that have been documented in the literature to lead to poor mentorship are:dissimilar personalities and habits, self-absorption, manipulative behavior, the delegation ofduty, intentional exclusion, self-promotion, incompetence, sabotage, general dysfunctionalityand deception
studentswithin the classroom if multiple paths are made available to help master the content of thecourse. On the simplest level, this may take the form of asking students what content was unclearat the end of a lecture, and sharing responsibility for the learning of the material by spending afew minutes clarifying those concepts before the period ends. An examination of the function of content suggests that it is ethical to teach less contentin favor of spending a small portion of student energy on self-reflection, helping them to developas learners. When tangential conversations occur about the applications and implications ofcontent in a lecture, instructors recognize these conversations for the valuable learning momentsthat they are, while
grant. The team met to document their reflections on their experiences. Large groupdiscussions were audio taped and transcribed.ResultsThe results sections are structured around the themes addressed in the theoretical framework. Weemphasize three in this Experience Based Research, specifically continuous improvement as amessaging and process strategy for departmental change towards equitable student success,human resources practices that support equitable student success, and departmental policies thatsupport equitable student success.Continuous improvementContinuous Improvement became an integral part of the messaging of change and the process ofchange in the RED grant implementation at University of Texas at El Paso. Initialcommunications
, but I really just wear jeans and a t-shirt. Yeah. Looking back, I think that maybe I should've considered that a little more. I find the engineering center to be a pretty hostile place.Upon reflection of this decision, Edith indicates a sense of regret (i.e., “...maybe I should’veconsidered that a little more.”), describing her institution’s engineering center as “a hostileplace”. Analysis of Edith’s interview yielded 47 codes distributed almost equally across themedical (32%), social (34%), and social-relational (34%) models, reflecting a time where Edithwas simultaneously experiencing diagnosis procedures and the dominant engineering culture attheir university. The following comment illustrates the interweaving of these models
mindfulness, resilience, and grit. This coursework includes: ● A first-year STARS seminar facilitated by STARS advising staff, which offers a space for students to reflect on their learning and educational experiences; brainstorm strategies for self-improvement; and develop “master schedules” to improve students’ time management and study skills. The seminar also provides an overview of non-STARS university resources for students such as counseling services and writing and tutoring centers. Students participating in the seminar also receive professional development opportunities through collaboration with the College of Engineering community and career centers. Engineering faculty and professionals discuss the
multiplecourses in different ways, including class discussions, team projects, problem sets, and writingassignments. These efforts include discussions of how civil engineering projects are linked toinequitable pollution concentrations, lack of access, mass incarceration, and displacement of lowincome communities. We have used readings to investigate the social cost of not consideringsocial justice in investment decisions and have engaged in design and build projects to contributeto the revitalization of historically-underserved communities. To reflect the diversity that weseek to encourage, we have placed particular emphasis on assigning readings from scholars whoare Black, Indigneous, People of Color (BIPOC). This is especially important given
and rural-urban differentiation. The aim is to critically reflect upon the extent to which the CS4ALL:RPPis reaching children that lack educational opportunities within the field of computer scienceeducation. In the following section, prior work published within the Computers and Educationdirectorate, as well as other pertinent scholarship, is briefly summarized and connections to thisresearch are made clear. The methods of data collection, organization, and analysis are detailedin the next section. The results offer an initial cataloging and review of the projects and programsfunded by the Research-Practitioner Partnerships, which is funded by the NSF as part of theCS4ALL program. The discussion focuses on the opportunities for
malintent, thatassociate people of color with negative concepts, even though most people self-report havingminimal to no bias (Greenwald et al., 1998). These unintentional beliefs, often referred to asracial microaggressions, communicate hostility toward people of color. Pierce (1974)conceptualized microaggressions as subtle, cumulative mini-assaults. Sue and colleagues (2007)define microaggressions as "brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmentalindignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, ornegative racial slights and insults toward persons of color" (p. 271). The current literatureexpands the definition of microaggressions to include "acts that reflect superiority, hostility
.5-6)The outcomes specifically address the need for interpersonal skills and a nuanced understandingof social and global context that may not be reflected in students’ or teachers’ understanding ofthe field. GCE Summer Camp 3Grand Challenges for EngineeringIn response to widespread misunderstandings of the field, as well as low enrollment numbers ofU.S. students in engineering programs [16], the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) hasintroduced a series of marketing campaigns to counter these common misperceptions ofengineering and the number and diversity of students entering engineering career fields. [16] [17][18] One of their campaigns to change perceptions is