colleges have discontinued in-person teaching practices for safety and healthconsiderations. Since social distancing is currently preeminent, the teaching and learningenvironments might become a challenge for faculty and students. Online mode of education is notnew at the college level and has become a ubiquitous practice because of the spread of the internet[1], [2], [3]. However, online education can be unengaging due to many reasons including personalattention, lack of social interaction, and excess of theory-based course content [4].Recently, more studies of online education have focused on student engagement given itsimportance to education and learning quality [4], [5], [6]. Student engagement is typically definedas the time and effort that
implementation, and students’online educational experiences. Also, the results of a questionnaire having four quantitativequestions, lab reports having two open-ended questions, and students’ tests performances aredescribed and analyzed, all comparing the f2f to online PL and PL + PPPL methods.Previous Work Modern educational thought has recognized early that practical laboratory experiences andprojects are important parts of learning [1]. This work is inspired by Kolb’s Experiential LearningCycle (KLC) [2] where Kolb claims that learners learn best (fully disregarding his previous modelof Preferred Learning Styles) when they follow a cyclical process consisting of four steps:experiencing, watching, thinking/modeling, and applying/doing. This
solvers, and able to understand the societal contexts in which they are working to addressing the grand challenges of the 21st century.Prof. Sang M. Han, University of New Mexico Dr. Han is a Regents Professor in the Departments of Chemical & Biological Engineering and Electrical & Computer Engineering at the University of New Mexico. He earned his Ph.D. in chemical engineering from the University of California at Santa Barbara and his B.S. in chemical engineering with honors from the University of California at Berkeley. Dr. Han has over 25 years of experience in electronic and pho- tonic materials engineering and fabrication. His current research topics include (1) writable/rewritable quantum structures
, reducing cost, and expandingaccess to nontraditional students unable to participate in residential programs.IntroductionEach year, the National Science Foundation provides grants to institutions of higher education tofund research internships for undergraduate students. These internship programs, titled“Research Experiences for Undergraduates” (REUs), each “consist of a group of ten or soundergraduates who work in the research programs of the host institution. Each student isassociated with a specific research project, where he/she works closely with the faculty and otherresearchers” [1]. The REU funding structure is intended to provide research opportunities tostudents who may not have access to undergraduate research opportunities at their
direct contact with students. The curriculumrevisions (Figure 1.1) attempted to maintain the content focus of the original lessons. Revised Curriculum Biometrics 1. September 21: Fingerprinting, Part 1-video on-line September 24: Friday Live Chat on Biometrics 2. September 28: Fingerprinting, Part 2- video on-line October 1: Thursday Live Chat on Biometrics Health and Beauty: Biodiversity I 3. October 5: Estimating Biodiversity- video on-line October 8: Thursday
withequipment in the lab. Large enrollment courses typically employ TAs to make the course moremanageable for the instructor. Depending on the institution and the course, TAs may be eitherundergraduate students or graduate students.TAs have many different kinds of responsibilities depending on the institution, the subjectmatter, the instructor, and the course structure. However, some common TA responsibilitiesinclude lecturing, leading discussions, leading review sessions, conducting labs, grading studentassignments, motivating students, helping students feel comfortable, providing feedback tostudents, assessing student prior and current knowledge and understanding, applying formativeassessments, and completing training programs [1]. Much literature
Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Overcoming Comfort Zones to Better the Self-Efficacy of Undergraduate Engineering Students (Tricks of the Trade) (WIP)INTRODUCTIONCommunity College SuccessInvolvement in co-curricular activities, including participation in student and professionalorganizations, can significantly enhance the overall educational experience [1]. Engineeringprograms in community colleges strive to reinforce student engagement that increases studentacademic and extracurricular success. [2-5] One factor that reduces engagement amongststudents in co-curricular activities is low self-efficacy. [6] Students believe that participation inco-curricular activities will take time from their academics [7] regardless of the
our selection criteria, thirty-two articles were identified for this review. Four majorthemes were present throughout the literature related to academic socialization: interests inSTEM, self-efficacy, STEM identity formation, and academic performance. The selected articlesare summarized below as well as in the appendix on table 1 and figure 1 to 3.Academic Socialization and Interests in STEMResearch continues to emphasize the importance of parental involvement in increasing females'self-confidence, engagement, and interests within STEM-related fields19,20. Majority of thearticles identified in this literature review focused on the role parents play in fostering the STEMinterests of students during their high school and college
neural engineering research [1]. The commission arguedthat the purpose of such deep collaboration “is to engage in ethical analysis and reflection andbring ethical decisions and assumptions inherent to the practice of science to the forefront toassess their merits, develop new standards or modify old ones, and reform practices whereneeded” [1]. Neuroethics, as defined by Wolpe [2], “involves the analysis of, and remedialrecommendations for, the ethical challenges posed by chemical, organic, and electromechanicalinterventions in the brain.” The need for this interdisciplinary area of study has become moreevident with our increasing ability to understand, monitor, and intervene with the human brain[3].Müller and Rotter [4] define neurotechnology
have seen little structuralor philosophical changes in the period since. In recent decades, workforce needs and theemployment landscape for STEM graduates has experienced fundamental changes in scale andscope. While the number of STEM-related jobs has risen significantly [1], [2] the range of STEMcareers has also expanded sharply [1], [2] . In the recent National Academies of Sciences,Engineering, and Medicine study report focused on Graduate STEM education for the 21st century[3], the authors observe that “Indeed, recent surveys of employers and graduates and studies ofgraduate education suggest that many graduate programs do not adequately prepare students totranslate their knowledge into impact in multiple careers.” In spite of the
program to earn aminor in Computing Applications. Many of these courses are taught by non-CS faculty and thecourse contents are adapted for life sciences students. Every course is assigned a dedicated groupof peer mentors who assist instructors and students during lectures and hold separate mentoringsessions every week. The curriculum for the Computing Applications minor (aka PINC minor) consists of thefollowing five courses, and the recommended course sequence is as follows: Fall (Year 1, Semester 1) ● CSc 306: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Computer Programming Spring (Year 1, Semester 2) ● CSc 219: Data Structures and Algorithms Fall (Year 2, Semester 3) ● CSc 308: An Interdisciplinary
assist students’academic achievement and confidence related to their abilities and experiences in the classroom.Situated learning and social cognitive abilities, and self-efficacy specifically in engineering andmathematics serve as the theoretical base for E-path’s conceptual framework. Self-efficacy is acomponent of social cognitive theory; a self-system that allows individuals to exercise controlover their thoughts, feelings, motivation, and actions. Self-efficacy is an individual’s belief inoneself to achieve specific results and perceived capabilities to attain specific types ofperformance [1], [2].Specifically, self-efficacy judgments are task and situation-specific. One critical componentidentified by the investigative team was to use PLTL
diverse promotion patterns as the product of individuals’ idiosyncratic interests,values, goals and competencies, leaving ourselves open to meritocratic explanations of career mobility. Incontrast, when we account for systemic inequities in organizations and society by critically examiningengineers’ careers in the aggregate, it is possible to gain insights into the “hidden curriculum”1 ofprofessional advancement. In this paper, we take the latter approach, adopting a critical secondaryanalysis of data originally collected for a project on situated workplace learning. The key contribution ofour analysis is to reframe the personal choice narrative of career advancement with a structuralexplanation of career stratification based on Jeannie Oakes
engineeringcurriculum. To add to this gap in literature, this paper analyzes quantitative responses of genderand sexual minority students’ perceptions of the engineering curricula from the survey conductedin 2018.Relevant LiteratureThe predominant normative marker of science and scientists in the U.S. has historically andcontinues to be based on White cisgender male perspectives [1]–[7]. Not surprisingly, thishomogenous and heterogenous perspective leads to pedagogical practices in which minoritizedstudents underperform compared to when innovative pedagogical models are used, such asflipped classrooms [8], [9]. This long-standing conceptualization of science and scientists alsoresults in an engineering curriculum that deems “issues of communication, justice
help studentsunderstand their design environment and identify possible prejudices before they are an issue;they also help create a more globally aware student who is prepared for positive and engagedcitizenship.Introduction and BackgroundRecent research in the fields of engineering and design pedagogy has highlighted the importanceof social consciousness in undergraduate education [1]. Yet much of the curriculum for studentsin engineering and design majors remains focused solely on science and mathematics without thenecessary extension of situating the design process in relevant social contexts [2]. Severalresearchers have reported on their efforts to consider social consciousness in the engineeringcurriculum. Examples include adding Socially
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Ohio Department of Education. Also, he frequently serves as an invited editorial board member, referee or panelist for various international journals, funding agencies, and professional associations. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021Pilot: Ways of Viewing Student Success – “Success is a State Function 1ABSTRACTMost literature in engineering education focuses on the problems or barriers to teachingundergraduate engineering students [1]. In professional settings, it has been implied beingsuccessful is having the ability to get the job
of abilities required to succeed professionally in theinformation age. The top four of these skills include critical thinking, creative thinking,collaboration, and communication [1]. In a typical engineering education curriculum, criticalthinking is addressed effectively. Also, students develop their collaboration skills via project-basedcourses that have become increasingly widespread in engineering education in the last twodecades. Furthermore, communication skills are often addressed through the inclusion of atechnical communication course or by otherwise satisfying the communication component ofestablished general education requirements. Laboratory experiences and project-based coursesemphasize the development of technical communication
paper willdescribe the program elements and explain the effects of these activities on our students withpreliminary outcome data and formative evaluation results about the program.1 IntroductionAccording to the 2020 report "STEM and the American Workforce" [1], STEM supports 67% ofU.S. jobs and 69% of the Nation's GDP. Computer occupations play a critical role in STEM.The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projected that about 600,000 or 67% of all new jobs inSTEM between 2018 and 2028 would be in computing. Average annual openings in computeroccupations during the decade were projected to be about 450,000 [2]. Although the number ofstudents who graduated with a bachelor's degree in computer and information sciences in 2016was more than 70,000
facilitate and lead STEMlearning programs, providing younger youth with positive role models and direct access to thepost secondary experience. Hiring is normally on a seasonal cycle, with recruitment taking placein December and hiring in January and February. Although it varies from year to year andprogram to program, typically 1 in 3 instructors return for a second or more work term. In 2020there were more returning instructors than in 2019 (40% in 2020 vs 29% in 2019).These instructors receive training and deliver programs, and in doing so, they also gaininvaluable employability and leadership skills as they launch their careers in STEM. Trainingtypically consists of 40-80 hours of onboarding, which includes training in program operationsand
Engineering Education and Outreach. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Practicing Engineers’ Definition of Their Expertise: Emergent Themes and Frequency by Gender Identity and Role Change into ManagementIntroduction & BackgroundThis full paper seeks to characterize how gender identity and role change into management affectpracticing engineers’ descriptions of their expertise. Expertise is defined through three mainattributes: (1) expert knowledge – depth of knowledge (2) expert reasoning – deductive processthat is inferentially based on an expert’s knowledgebase, (3) and expert memory – workingmemory rather than short-term memory [1]. Development of
pushed out (forms of latent diversity that are difficult to see but foster equity andinclusion nonetheless). Second, it can allow us to better tailor courses to fit students’ interestsand needs, thus increasing student belonging, innovation, and adoption of new ideas.To this end, we explore two research questions: (1) Do students’ engineering beliefs, careerpriorities, and field interests predict interest across several disciplines of engineering?; and (2)Are the relationships between students’ beliefs and discipline interests moderated by patterns ofrepresentation and parity?Data for this study were collected from 32 U.S. ABET-accredited institutions, with a totalsample size of 3,711 undergraduate engineering students. We focused on students
Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Preparing Future Engineers Through Project Based LearningAbstractA significant amount of research suggests the common reasons students leave an engineeringmajor include lack of faculty mentoring, lack of a sense of belonging, financial hardships, andcourse difficulties in the prerequisite STEM courses [1]. Project-based learning (PBL)potentially addresses several of these reasons and increases the chances of a student completingan engineering major.Engineering students are more likely to persist when they feel a sense of belonging andcommunity engagement, when they have early interactions with faculty mentors, and when theyexperience a series of successes [2]. The research question involves whether
feeling better informed aboutcollaborative robots, how they are used in manufacturing, how to program them, as well as how to operateindustry standard machine tools. This work in progress study may serve as a valuable guide for K-12 STEMeducators and policy makers interested in developing programs which inspire and equip pre-collegestudents to pursue engineering careers. Future work will enlarge the sample size of participants throughadditional offerings and include quantitative evaluations of instructional effectiveness in addition to thestudent surveys.IntroductionGlobal manufacturing is undergoing a paradigm shift towards flexible automation in the form of internet-enabled machinery and collaborative robots (cobots) [1]. Previously, due to
-related design processes and factors.Keywords: Engineering Education, Civil Engineering Design, Human-Centred Designing,Priming, Empathy, Social Consciousness, Personal Values, Engineering ValuesIntroductionMany have discussed the technocentric engineering curricula [1] – [5], that tend tomarginalise [3] and devalue [6],[7], the less technical and more ‘socially-involved’ aspects ofengineering, and have thus stood with Cech’s [2] call for the integration of public welfareconcern and social consciousness in engineering curricula.An aligning call/prompt for the integration of empathic [8] – [10], compassionate [11],‘socially-just’ [12],[13], and/or human-centred designing [14] – [18] in engineering curriculahave also risen. This is reflected in
implications toward broadening participation in engineeringthrough school counselor professional development. BackgroundThe engineering education system across the world still struggles to be more inclusive despitenumerous calls to increase representation of women and minorities. In 2016, women accountedfor only 21% of students pursuing a bachelor’s degree in engineering [1], while Hispanicsaccounted for approximately 10% of students studying engineering and African Americansaccounted for just under 4% of all engineering undergraduate students [1]. According to Katehi,Pearson, and Feder (2009), the lack of diversity present in undergraduate engineering has itsroots in the K-12 system where “access and
Engineer of 2020 attributes. This study will also be ofinterest to educators considering how the attributes described in 2004 remain relevant in 2020and may spark conversation about how these attributes may need to be adjusted in the future.The study will be of particular interest to those responsible for recommending and implementingcurricular changes in engineering programs.BackgroundThe report titled The Engineer of 2020, published in 2004, is a product of the National Academyof Engineering[1]. The committee responsible for writing the document included 18 people: 12affiliated with academic institutions, 4 affiliated with technology-based companies (IBM, HP,Telcordia, and Reliant Energy), 1 affiliated with a national laboratory (Sandia), and 1
, 2021 1. Power Engineering Education StatusEmerging trends in STEM education have continued to call for quality education that is fosteringthe ability of graduates to meet the challenges of the 21st century industry, while encouragingtheir participation in sustainable development. Energy and power industries are the cornerstoneof prosperous society, while all the critical and crucial socio-economic functions depend on thesecure, sustainable and reliable power and energy infrastructures. There are recent recognitionsand acknowledgements of the needs to improve, restructure or rebuild curriculum and revitalizedand reform energy and power engineering education. Equipping students with the skills andknowledge required to be successful engineers
Project-Based Learning: Contrasting Experience between Traditional Face- to-Face Instruction and Virtual Instruction Jaya Dofe1, Sudarshan Kurwadkar2 1 Department of Computer Engineering 2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering California State University, Fullerton, CA, USA *Corresponding author: jdofe@fullerton.eduAbstractThe Introduction to engineering (EGGN-100) is a project-based course offered every fall semesterto first-year students with undecided engineering majors at California State University, Fullerton(CSUF). The primary
development of evidence-based interventions to promote retention and student success in engineering. Her fields of technical expertise include process modeling, simulation, and process control. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Psychological Cost, Gender, and Retention Among Engineering Students AbstractThere is great interest in developing interventions to improve retention in engineering programsby exploring influential factors at the institutional, curricular, and student levels, especially forunderrepresented minorities. According to expectancy-value theory [1], students’ perceptions oftask-related
Computational Thinking course for non-majors. An initialquantitative evaluation of the visualizations raised questions about their long-term effectivenessand ease of use. This study represents a qualitative study done to gain deeper insight into theexperiences of students. The results of this study demonstrated students were engaging withcourse materials in unexpected ways but frequently referred back to the visualizations.Additionally, students had an approach to understanding the visualizations that was both helpfuland problematic. These findings help to inform visualization and curriculum designers aboutstudent attitudes and strategies in using course materials.1 IntroductionDue to the abstract nature of Computer Science it is not uncommon for