-91, 2014.[2] A. McKenna, R. Linsenmeier, and M. Glucksberg, "Characterizing computational adaptive expertise," in 2008 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 2008.[3] J. S. Zawojewski, H. A. Diefes-Dux, and K. J. Bowman, Models and modeling in engineering education: Designing experiences for all students. Sense Publishers, 2008.[4] J. M. Wing, "Computationalthinking," in Communications of the ACM, vol. 49, no. 3, p. 33-35. 2006.[5] U. Ilic, H. I. Haseski, and U. Tugtekin, "Publications trends over 10 years of computational thinking research," in Contemporary Education Technology, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 131-153, 2018.[6] R. Lesh and H. M. Doerr (Eds.). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling
convincing research gap in the introductory sections of the documents. Table 3shows the themes designated as Broader Impacts. These were determined by the NSF definitionof Broader Impacts, which was included in the Introduction, as well as open coding from theactivities that the participant described as contributing to the broader impact.Table 3: Broader Impacts Themes, Definitions, and Participant Examples Evaluation Criteria: Broader Impacts Theme Definition Example(s)K-12 Education Mention of outreach to “As I did as an undergrad during Engineering for Kids, I willand Outreach school-aged children, expose basic aspects of my
contesting identities of expertise in a heterogeneous learning context. In S. Wortham & B. Rymes (Eds.), Linguistic Anthropology of Education (Vol. 37, pp. 61–91). Westport, CT: Praeger.5. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and it consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.6. Star, S. L., & Bowker, G. C. (1997). Of lungs and lungers: The classified story of tuberculosis. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4(1), 3-23.7. Greeno, J. G. & The Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group (1997). Theories and practices of thinking and learning to think. American Journal of Education, 106, 85– 126.8. Johri, A., Olds, B.M., and O’Connor, K. (2014). Situative frameworks for
in SoTL.References[1] A. M. Lucietto, and L. A. Russell, “STEM Educators: How They Teach,” Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, no. Summer 2018, 2018.[2] C. R. Thomas, “Personality in Engineering Technology,” Journal of Engineering Technology, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 16-20, Fall2014, 2014.[3] E. R. Kahu, and K. Nelson, “Student engagement in the educational interface: understanding the mechanisms of student success,” Higher education research & development, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 58-71, 2018.[4] R. M. Felder, and R. Brent, “Understanding student differences,” Journal of engineering education, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 57-72, 2005.[5] J. A. Gasiewski, M. K. Eagan, G. A. Garcia, S. Hurtado
. Vitak et al. critique the IRB process for applying strict requirements forlow-risk research [18]. While our study was low-risk, we successfully underwent the IRBprocess and received approval exempt from full board review. However, we found that twocommunity colleges would not recognize our qualifying IRB. Each college's IRB requested thatthe research study go through their college’s IRB qualification before allowing their faculty toreceive the recruitment message. In one instance, coauthor 1 asked to forward the recruitmentmessage from coauthor 2's initial postings and was told to submit the survey to coauthor 1's IRBbefore doing so. In the second instance, after someone had forwarded our survey invitation totheir colleagues, a community
periods are the focus of this work. A visualization of thismodel is presented below in Figure 1. Figure 1: Conrad et al.’s (2006, p. 257) Model of Undergraduate SocializationStrayhorn [23] argues that feelings of belonging are a fundamental human need that are alsosufficient to drive behavior. Individuals that feel cared for, supported, and that they matter tothose around them in a given environment subsequently feel that they belong in thatenvironment. Belonging takes on heightened importance during uncertain or stressful periods oftime, and in contexts where an individual feels like an outsider. For most traditional prospectivestudents, the college application process is stressful and takes place during late adolescence: acritical period
traditional linear regression and thus necessitatesa regression method that accounts for clustering within a sample. ICC values can range from 0 to1, with higher values indicating stronger intergroup correlations and indicating the need forHierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) methods. While the interpretation of ICC depends on thecontext of the study and the research question being addressed, ICC values greater than 0.1generally indicate that there is a significant amount of clustering in the data and that HLM maybe appropriate [40]. It is also important to note that the interpretation of ICC values should bedone in conjunction with other information about the study, such as the sample size andcharacteristics, the instrument(s) used, and the research
HSGPAranges.Continuing from the insights provided by the KDE analysis, we further examine the variability inprogram complexity among universities. This part of the exploratory data analysis focuses on howthe structural aspects of university curricula influence student enrollment decisions. As highlightedin Figure 3, the distribution of program complexity varies notably between different institutions,such as University ’1’ and University ’3’. This variability is not merely incidental but indica-tive of these institutions’ diverse academic cultures and curricular frameworks. The KDE plot forUniversity ’1’, with a multi-peaked distribution, suggests a curriculum that offers a wide array ofprograms ranging from less to more complex. In contrast, University ’3’s
Fellow role(s) interested them and why. All of the candidates wereinterviewed and, based on those conversations, we decided to add two more Fellowship roles: The EnSURE Fellow would help organize the Engineering Summer Undergraduate Research Experience (EnSURE) program The Recruiting Fellow would assist in identifying and connecting with prospective graduate students through on- and off-campus recruiting activitiesIn addition to these six Engineering Graduate Leadership fellows, we decided to partner with theGraduate School’s Leadership Fellows program to co-sponsor two additional roles: a GraduateStudent Life and Wellness Fellow, focusing specifically on the needs of Engineering graduatestudents, and a Women in STEM
of applications that were introduced in the workshop.Upon completion of the workshop, the participants were given an eight-question exit post-trainingsurvey shown in Figure 2. There were six quantitative questions using a five point or a three-pointLikert scale as well as two qualitative questions. The two qualitative questions were also used aspedagogical tools based on experiential learning best practices. Question 7’s goal was to elicit apositive self-reflection while Question 8 reinforced learning through internalization andsummarization. 1. Exiting this workshop, I learned something new about AI concepts, applications, and ethics (1 - strongly disagree to 5 - strongly agree). 2. I have a better understanding of AI and how to
, how to dress, eat and hold a professional conversation at a formal meal during aninterview; and how to network and follow-up after meeting people professionally. The guestspeakers, veterans themselves, were excited to present to these highly motivated student veteransand to share their stories, and in the process, they inspired this next generation of engineers andengineering technologists.Keywords: adult learners, engineering, learning communities, STEM workforce preparationIntroductionThe goal of the National Science Foundation S-STEM project, A Pathway to Completion forVeterans Pursuing Engineering and Engineering Technology Degrees, is to provide professionaldevelopment and scholarships to student veterans who are attending Old Dominion
] E. Salas, N. J. Cooke, and M. A. Rosen, “On Teams, Teamwork, and Team Performance: Discoveries and Developments,” Human Factors, 50(3), 540-547, 2008.[4] E. Salas, E., D. L. Reyes, and A. L. Woods, “The Assessment of Team Performance: Observations and Needs” Innovative Assessment of Collaboration, 21-36, 2017.[5] G. Wu, C. Liu, X. Zhao, and J. Zuo, “Investigating the Relationship between Communication- Conflict Interaction and Project Success Among Construction Project Teams,” International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1466-1482, 2017.[6] A. J. Garcia, and S. Mollaoglu, “Individuals’ Capacities to Apply Transferred Knowledge in AEC Project Teams,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
thermodynamics; Carnot Cycle; thermodynamic, overall, and isentropicefficiencies; effectiveness of heat exchangers; refrigeration and heat pump cycles, includingabsorption and cascade refrigeration, and other advanced cycles; air-conditioning processes ofhumid air; Reheat Rankine cycle including means to improve its efficiency; Otto and Dieselcycles; Brayton with intercooling, reheating, and regeneration; property diagrams, p-v, T-v, T-p,T-s, h-s, p-h, and Psychrometric chart.This paper examines course offerings in the fall of 2019, 2020, and 2021. The three offeringsdiffered in content delivery methods. Course in 2019 had one-third of the lectures flipped and alllabs were in person. Course in 2020 had completely flipped lectures and all instruction
es e es be rs ds s fic st in
these constructs; Intrinsic goalorientation, Task value, Expectancy component and Metacognition increased after theyparticipated in the experiment whereas Test Anxiety reduced after the students were taught usingECP (mean = -0.21, test anxiety is expected to continuously decrease due to the intervention). Thisshows that the students are now confident in the biology concept they have learned.As previously mentioned, Table 2's results provide the summary statistics (mean, standarddeviation, and mean difference) as well as the p-values of paired t-tests of students' pre- and post-test scores for each MLSQ domain.Other notable improvements in the domain were in students’ Task value (subdomains: I am veryinterested in the content area of this course
circumstances, such as poor acoustics, room size, temperature, or aglaring blackboard, that could interfere with teaching and learning, are noted. The classobservation is completed before the end of the tenth week of the semester.Post Observation: This meeting is essential to share the observation outcomes. A post-observation form with guiding questions ensures that peer-observers follow a standardizedprocess. Faculty members also ask their own questions to the peer-observer(s). The discussioninvolves sharing notes and comments with the instructor, highlighting the positive aspects of theinstructions, and providing suggestions to further improve the quality of teaching. Either thecommittee member or the instructor may bring up any issue that needs
. Evans, F. Jentsch, and J. Keebler, “Constructs of Spatial Ability and Their Influence onPerformance with Unmanned Systems,” Hum. Factors Issues Combat Identif., Jan. 2010.[3] A. Ramful, T. Lowrie, and T. Logan, “Measurement of Spatial Ability: Construction and Validation of theSpatial Reasoning Instrument for Middle School Students,” J. Psychoeduc. Assess., vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 709–727, Oct.2017, doi: 10.1177/0734282916659207.[4] J. Buckley, N. Seery, and D. Canty, “Investigating the use of spatial reasoning strategies in geometricproblem solving,” Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 341–362, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10798-018-9446-3.[5] N. S. Newcombe, “Picture This: Increasing Math and Science Learning by Improving
program was grant-funded and provided busing to and from AMSA’s campus fromstudents’ homes for student populations that identified this need, as well as to and from bothinstitutions the second week for all participants. The overall cost of the program broke down to$708 per pupil. The S-STEM survey [14] was used as a pre- and post-intervention measure, aswell as an additional exit survey. The S-STEM survey indicated no statistically significantchanges in interest in or attitudes towards STEM. Program coordinators felt this was probablynot the correct program metric instrument considering the population involved and the brevity ofthe program. The additional exit survey in comparison to the entrance survey saw no differencein students planning to
they view the relationshipbetween the AEC industry and society.References[1] E. A. Cech, "Culture of disengagement in engineering education?," Science, Technology, and Human Values, pp. 42-72, 2014.[2] L. Debs, C. M. Gray and P. A. Asunda, "Students' perceptions and reasoning patterns about ethics of emerging technology," International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 2022.[3] K. G. Bristol, "The Pruitt-Igoe myth," Journal of Architectural Education, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 163-171, 1991.[4] M. Wachs, P. S. Chesney and Y. H. Hwang, "A Century of Fighting Traffic Congestion in Lost Angeles," UCLA Luskin Center for History and Policy, Los Angeles, 2020.[5] C. Martani, S. Eberle and B. T. Adey, "Evaluating highway design
conferences.Wendy CagleDr. Scott Rowe, Western Carolina University Scott Rowe is an Assistant Professor in Western Carolina University’s School of Engineering + Technol- ogy. He joined Western Carolina University in 2021 after studies in concentrated solar power and controls engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder. Scott’s research relates to accessible and inexpensive engineering equipment for laboratory education. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Fostering Leaders in Technology Entrepreneurship (FLiTE): Program Goals and First Year ActivitiesThe NSF S-STEM funded program titled Fostering Leaders in Technology Entrepreneurship(FLiTE) at Western Carolina
: The CDIO Approach," J. Malmqvist, S. Östlund, D. R. Brodeur, and K. Edström, Eds., Second edition ed: Cham : Springer, 2014.[3] M. Wisnioski, "What's the Use? History and Engineering Education Research," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 244-251, 2015.[4] D. T. Bourdeau and B. L. Wood, "What Is Humanistic STEM and Why Do We Need It?," Journal of Humanistic Mathematics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 205-216, 2019, doi: 10.5642/jhummath.201901.11.[5] J. W. Bequette and M. B. Bequette, "A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation," Art Education, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 40-47, 2012.[6] D. Henriksen, "Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices," The STEAM journal, vol. 1, no
.2006.00170004.[3] “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2022-23,” ABET. https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting- engineering-programs-2023-2024/#GC5 (accessed Mar. 21, 2023).[4] A. J. Dutson, R. H. Todd, S. P. Magleby, and C. D. Sorensen, “A Review of Literature on Teaching Engineering Design Through Project-Oriented Capstone Courses,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 86, pp. 17–28, 1997, doi: 10.1002/j.2168- 9830.1997.tb00260.x.[5] M. C. Paretti, J. D. Ford, S. Howe, D. A. Kotys-Schwartz, and R. Ott, “It’s a Context Gap, Not a Competency Gap: Understanding the Transition from Capstone Design to Industry,” in 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference, ASEE
students would perform during their undergraduate education. Finally, we suggest that anactivity like this should be evaluated as a research question(s) to find out if the intervention canreplace (maybe only partially replace) students’ perception of the “Mythical Engineer”.Understanding how education will help us write ourselves into our futuresOur second piece of how story and narrative are fundamental to diversifying engineering is morerelated to what is the fundamental transformation that begins in undergraduate education, andmore broadly, in higher education. Here, we look at the body of work by Baxter Magolda and herideas on intellectual development. As she has a broad base of research articles and books, we startby recommending some of her
the Psychology Department at Seattle University. Dr. Cook received her doctorate in Social and Personality Psychology from the University of Washington, with a minor in quantitative methods and emphases in cognitiveDr. Gregory Mason, P.E., zyBooks, A Wiley Brand Gregory S. Mason received the B.S.M.E. degree from Gonzaga University in 1983, the M.S.M.E. de- gree in manufacturing automation from Georgia Institute of Technology in 1984 and the Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering, specializing in multi-rate digitalDr. Teodora Rutar Shuman, Seattle University Professor Teodora Rutar Shuman is the Chair of the Mechanical Engineering Department at Seattle Uni- versity. She is the PI on a NSF-RED grant. Her research
. 100, no. 2, pp. 281–303, Apr. 2011.[5] A. L. Pawley, “Learning from small numbers: Studying ruling relations that gender and race the structure of U.S. engineering education,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 13–31, 2019, doi: 10.1002/jee.20247.[6] G. Ladson-Billings and W. F. Tate, “Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education,” Teachers College Record, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 47–68, Sep. 1995, doi: 10.1177/016146819509700104.[7] R. Delgado and J. Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, 2nd ed. New York: NYU Press, 2001.[8] R. Delgado, “Rodrigo’s Reconsideration: Intersectionality and the Future of Critical Race Theory,” Iowa Law Review, vol. 96, pp. 1247–1288, Jan. 2011.[9] P. H. Collins and S. Bilge