this subscale. Furthermoreincreasing the awareness of engineering students to experiences in other cultures andunderstanding how these experiences may impact growth in their own lives could stimulatediscussion and reflection. American Professional Group Difference Diversity of Contact 19.77 26.27 6.50 Relative Appreciation 22.11 24.73 2.62 Emotional Comfort 25.36 24.91 -0.45 Table 8 A comparison of American undergraduate student attitudes to attitudes from a group of global professionals
of effective ideas.AcknowledgmentsThe authors acknowledge the support provided by the National Science Foundation NSF EEC1025155/1338383. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed inthis paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation.References1. Kim JW, Tsenn J, Durand F, et al. Does the Mechanical Engineering Curriculum Hurt Engineering Creativity and Design Self-Efficacy? Journal of Engineering Education. in preparation.2. Fabien Durand MEH, Joanna Tsenn, Erin McTigue, Daniel A. McAdams, Julie S. Linsey. Teaching Students to Innovate: Evaluating Methods for Bioinspired design and Their Impact on Design Self Efficacy IDETC
. IEEE Trans. Edu., 49(3):389–397, 2006.[24] J. Ma and L Jeffrey. Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1–24, 2006.[25] R.M. Felder and L.K. Silverman. Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7):674–681, 1988.[26] N.D. Fleming and C. Mills. Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11: 137–155, 1992. Page 26.348.15
student biases and misconceptions areexposed and a broader perspective is gained of the world in which we live and work [2, 3, 4, 5]. Inrecent years there has been a significant increase in the number of engineering-specificinternational programs reflecting the increasing globalization of the engineering enterprise.As engineering educators one might ask if engineering students learn differently on study abroadprograms than do students in other majors? And, if so, what implication does this have indeveloping and conducting these programs? The field of international education has, for sometime, sought to find ways to adequately assess international programs [3]. There is a consensus inmuch of the literature that studying abroad can have a positive
. Page 26.381.7Student performance on a graphics exam in a first-year engineering course required by allengineering majors at Michigan Tech was compared for students taking the PSVT:R on paperand through the LMS to determine if there was a difference in spatial ability between thesegroups. In the first-year engineering course, ENG1101, approximately five 1.5 hour classsessions are spent on sketching topics, followed by an exam. The graphics topics covered in thiscourse include isometric and oblique sketching, orthographic projections of normal, inclined, andcurved surfaces, rotations, reflections, and planes of symmetry. Students scoring 60% or belowon the PSVT paper and LMS versions were excluded from this analysis because they wererequired to
the assigned programming projectswere slightly more substantial. Exam metrics reflected this change in emphasis as well. Studentswere more capable of generating global beam stiffness matrices by hand (87%), and slightly morefamiliar with shape functions (70%). However, nearly half of students could not answer a con-ceptual question regarding the difference between a finite element and continuous solution for anelastic bar.It should be noted that both class sizes were small (11 and 15), and that there were differences inexpectations in each group. In 2013, the students were nearer completion of the degree, with moreexperience from upper level courses with a significant programming component. Specifically,45% of the 2013 cohort had taken two or
collaborativeeducational approaches.Lattuca and Stark’s academic planning model refer to these requirements as purposes andcontent. Additional considerations we took into account that are well reflected in the academicplanning model are instructional resources and processes, both of which were importantconsiderations in our program, especially considering the special issues associated with growinga new program where student enrollment is relatively low. For example, new program had topromote hands-on approaches in courses and outside the university to make it an active anddynamic learning experience. Lectures and in-class assignments had to be supported by Page
scale ranges from 1-10 and thereforeeach scale value reflects a 10% change). The data are also not ratio data, since zero is not a possible rating(a student would only receive a zero if they did not present their work, in which case there would be nopeer evaluation). This restricts the types of analysis that can be applied to the data, and reduces thesensitivity of any conclusions (Trochim, 2006). Nonetheless, interesting conclusions regarding bias andpotential cronyism can be drawn when we organized the ratings into ranges and looked at the frequencyof ratings in each range, as discussed below.Given the small amount of data and that reliability has been studied extensively, we chose to investigateto what extent students used the entire range
] Tinto, V., “Research and practice of student retention: What next?”, Journal of College Student Retention:Research, Theory & Practice, 2007, v. 8 no. 1, p. 1-19.[2] Chen, X. “STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths Into and Out of STEM Fields”, National Center forEducation Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC, 2013.[3] Veenstra, C.P., Dey, E.L., Herrin, G.D., “Is Modeling of Freshman Engineering Success Different fromModeling of Non-Engineering Success?” Journal of Engineering Education, Washington, D.C., 2008, v. 97 no. 4,October, p. 467-79.[4] Harris, J. G., “Journal of Engineering Education Round Table: Reflections on the Grinter Report”, 1994 (1), p.69-94[5] Carr, R., Thomas, D
the PowerPoint files. He was completely involved indeveloping the “flip” but didn’t create any video content. Reflecting on this after the semester, itwas a mistake to attempt what might be called a partial flip. He agreed to take of EI because hewas given the opportunity to teach a well-developed flipped course. He also was building on hisexperience from the earlier course. The fundamental reason why he was interested is based onreading papers and forming a conviction that his time with the students is best served helpingthem get past difficulties by learning how they approach problems. Then he is able to help themdetermine where there are gaps in their knowledge and how to use the course resources to bridgethose gaps. A lecture isn’t
. One of the main idea of Socratic principles oflearning is focusing on systematic questioning method (Overholser, 1993). This method isspecifically important for different liberal art fields such as in law (Hawkins-Leon, 1998; Kerr,1999), psychotherapy (Overholser, 1994) and other fields. Questions as sole method of teachingemphasizes involving students in conversations in which they would discover limits of theirknowledge and get inspired to learn more (Paraskevas & Wickens, 2003). Moreover, applicationof constructivism principles which focuses on arguments, discussions, debates, conflicts anddilemmas, sharing ideas with others, working towards the solution, creating reflections, addressingstudent needs and connecting what is learned to
more relevant to societal needs.It is not just about gender equity — it is about doing better engineering for us all.”References [1] National Society of Professional Engineers. http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics/engineers-creed, 1954. [2] IEEE. IEEE Mission Statement. http://www.ieee.org/about/vision mission.html. [3] James A. Stieb. Understanding Engineering Professionalism: A Reflection on the Rights of Engineers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(1):149–169, 2011. [4] A. Kirn and L. Benson. Quantitative assessment of student motivation to characterize difference between engineering majors. Frontiers in Education Conference, 2013. [5] M. F. Fox, G. Sonnert, and I. Nikiforova. Programs for Undergraduate Women in
a deeper, more experi-ential level, this typeset output reinforces the belief that a program is a document, encouragingprogrammers to write documents, instead of disjointed comments. Finally, this underlying beliefthat a program is a document then opens to the authors the multitude of advantages which accrueto writers: creation of and reflection on the overall structure of the essay; the ability to easily in-clude others in the development process; the inclusion of the creative ideas which produced aparticular implementation.This last point bears further investigation. Traditional programming focuses on the what – the code,which defines a specific implementation. This information provides a compiler all the informationneeded to blindly
the knowledge and tools necessary for being successful in this course. 5 Work effectively as a member of a team. Teamwork 6 Use written, oral, and graphical communication to convey methods, results, and Communication conclusions. 7 Demonstrate a capacity for self-directed, lifelong learning, including goal Lifelong Learning setting, decision-making, project planning, resource discovery and evaluation, personal development (autonomy, self-motivation, self-confidence, self- reflection). 8 Develop and apply attitudes and skills for creativity within the context of Creativity materials science and engineering. 9 Develop
their sessions, some measures were not utilized by Instructor B.The outcomes of student performance were categorized into two levels: (a) individuallevel performance and (b) team level performance. Here, individual level performanceindicates individual students’ scores from their own performance on enculturation factorsand team level performance indicates that students in the same team received the samescores as reflection of teamwork for an activity on enculturation factors. The mostfrequent number of team members was four and a few teams had three, due to the lack ofstudents or attrition. Table 2 shows characteristics of the measures utilized in this study,related enculturation factors of each measure, and the level of performance. Details
) teach with examples andcases, 5) prime student motivation and use formative assessment.8 Learning blocks werecreated, refined, and utilized in our two most recent Tech-E camps to see if they couldmaintain the same level of engagement with learners while involving deeper learning andentrepreneurship concepts in them.Learning blocks were designed to take advantage of key strategies found in project-basedlearning, such as, tackling realistic problems using the learner’s knowledge, increasinglearners control over their learning, involving instructors that serve as coaches/facilitatorsof inquiry and reflection, and utilizing either pairs or groups in the process. 9,10 Thechallenge portions of the blocks introduce some key entrepreneurship components
test is not a reflection of the protocols themselves butrather a byproduct of implementations and possibly routing policies along the packet paths.Figure 9. Example output from v6Sonar showing the results of a performance test towww.google.com from six globally distributed monitoring agents. The test performed was HTTPGet of Web content.Discussion of findingsCzyz et al’s 2014 study provided a model for assessing IPv6 adoption through the first at largeempirical study of the state of IPv6 adoption by analyzing ten different datasets and producingresults on twelve adoption metrics. Their study provided qualitative and quantitative evidencethat IPv6 “is being used natively for production and at a rapidly-increasing rate” 3. In this studywe
geared motors, integrated motor drive circuits, three-axisaccelerometer/compass, piezo-electric buzzer, status light emitting diodes (LEDs), a userpushbutton, and an infrared reflectance sensor array for high contrast sensing. The mostadvantageous aspect of this chassis was the wide range of microcontroller boards it accepted.While we selected the well-known Arduino UNO Rev3 microcontroller, many others aresuitable, including all Pololu’s A-Star 32U4 family and other similar form factor third-partyofferings. One board and cable were given to each individual student, while one chassis wasshared across teams of two students.The most costly support equipment item was the rolling storage case by Lista. This five-drawer,tool chest style case was
requirements.ConclusionIn conclusion, public educational institutions are responsible for educating students in a safe andeffective environment. Across the US, the number of female students engaging in PLTW doesnot reflect the population as a whole. Therefore, women will continue to be underrepresented inthese programs unless measures are taken. Offering all-female PLTW cohorts have proven theirsuccess to attract and retain more female students. Though the evidence is clear, all-femalePLTW cohorts are slow to be adopted. There is a fear that single-sex education in a mixedsetting gives preferential treatment and an unfair advantage to some students. However, withoutthese interventions, the representation of women in PLTW and engineering programs willincrease
Keating 38 39; Keating Methodology semiautonomous subsystems et al. 40Classification Systems-based Description Primary Proponents Methodology Critical Systems A process of critical reflection based on a set of boundary Ulrich 41 42 Heuristics questions that examine the legitimacy of designs by contrasting what ‘is’ proposed versus what ‘ought’ to be Organizational Makes explicit individual and organizational models that enable Argyris and Learning organizations to make
this study: Dean Tonie Badillo, El Paso CommunityCollege; Dr. Monica Cortez, Texas A&M University; Dr. Eli Esmaeili, South Texas College; Dr.Ben Flores, UTEP; Assistant Dean Patricia A. Gore, UT Austin; Dr. Julie Martin, ClemsonUniversity; Dr. Sylvia McMullen, Blinn College; Dr. MaryJane McReynolds, Austin CommunityCollege; Ms. Jackie Perez; Texas A&M University; Dr. Soko S. Starobin, Iowa State University;Dr. Cristina Villalobos, UT Rio Grande Valley.This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1428502. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National
. This research is funded by the NSF as acollaborative research grant (EEC-1360665, 1360956, and 1360958). Any opinions, findings,and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and donot necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.Bibliography[1] National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2010 SESTAT Integrated Data System, 2013, Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/sestat.[2] G. Lichtenstein, H. G. Loshbaugh, B. Claar, H. L. Chen, K. Jackson, and S. D. Sheppard, “An engineering major does not (necessarily) an engineer make: Career decision making among undergraduate engineering majors,” J. Eng. Ed., vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 227-234.[3] National Center
amount of engineering workthroughout the entire term. While there are merits to different approaches of classroom teamassignments, project alternative design approaches, and variations in team sizes, the university-wide program appears to be best served on a case-by case basis, for which the needs of thecommunity are reflected in the team formulation in the academic course.The university-wide program improves the management of the partnerships as the programstructures the coursework and project development. Often, projects crossing disciplines retainseparate course numbers such that students in the civil engineering program can be assessedaccording to departmental standards. Project contracts are written prior to the semester to aid
research seminar again could indicate that students were discouraged bythe research seminar.Students who elected to participate in the student club meetings demonstrated an increase inlearning about engineering compared to the other students. This increased enjoyment ofengineering is reflected in the overwhelming number, 67%, of freshman students who do intendto continue attending student club meetings in the future. Accordingly, future EngineeringEngagement activity development ought to focus on two goals: ensuring that the presentedmaterial is suited for a freshman audience, and creating a learning community focused on activeparticipation of students.ConclusionsThis study involved 60 freshman engineering students enrolled in Engr 120 at a large
andtroubleshooting. Additional reflection includes a summary of the short- and long-term benefitsof the experience and resulting infrastructure from the perspectives of both academia andindustry participants.OverviewCollaboration between academia and industry in engineering programs has a strong historyprimarily driven by and through research partnerships. While significant interactions have longexisted at the graduate level, interactions at the undergraduate level are more limited. Thoughthis trend is beginning to change; some challenges facing both industry and academia areprompting an increased level of interaction and new models of collaboration1,2.Technical programs, such as those found in applied engineering domains, have primarily focusedon
Education, Savannah, GA. https://engineering.purdue.edu/MIDFIELD/Papers/paper08.pdf6. Meadows, L.A., Fowler, R., and Hildinger, E. S. (2012). Empowering students with choice in the first year. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas. Retrieved from: https://www.asee.org/public/conferences/8/papers/4128/download7. Meyers K. L., Silliman, S. E., Gedde N.L. and Ohland, M. W. (2010). A comparison of engineering students’ reflections on their first-year experiences. Journal of Engineering Education, 99, 169-178
results do not prove the superiority ofthe CBI compared to other traditional methodologies, the CBI approach did offer our students theframework and skills to bridge the gap between traditionally disparate sciences. The courseevaluations filled by students, and the reflective summary by the involved faculty, show manypositive improvements in attitude, independence, attendance, learning engagements, immersion,and mood. We also measured significant improvements in programming and problem solving,especially as it related to mathematics and physics, as well as in decision making.Some of the skills that CBI targeted were interpersonal skills, oral and verbal communications,and presentations.Acknowledgment:Part of this work was conducted while
of the student is not important, or as important as starting from the knownand then cater in a more personalized way to foster growth and confidence. Comfort zoneis personal; the activities will help the student break out of that comfort zone throughself-pacing and guidance directed at his learning style or skill level. Failure isencouraged; unlike the traditional exam-based schooling methodology that penalizesmistakes, in Maker culture failure is not only expected, it is fostered and encouraged,given that through mistakes, failure and perseverance, students are able to prototype,practice and master the acquired skills. At the same time the student is able to achievethrough self-reflection and perseverance the first three levels of Bloom’s
. However, there were participants across a variety of ethnicities and from all studentclassifications, including graduate students. Other majors represented in the sample wereMechanical Engineering, Construction Science, Petroleum Engineering, and various otherEngineering programs. Data on handedness was also gathered and 12.9% (n=22) of theparticipants were left-handed which is reflective of the population as a whole. A summary of thedemographics of the participants is found in Table 3. Table 3: Demographic information Total Number of Participants: N = 170 Student Gender College Major Ethnicity
reflect on their work and analyze theirown problem solving approaches. For instance, some participants were able to use the physicalmanipulative so answer questions very quickly or to reinforce concepts. Some participants wereable to use the physical manipulative without problems, but other felt that the physicalmanipulative was not as intuitive and they required guidance. Although the physicalmanipulative was designed to be very user-friendly, some of the participants required a certaindegree of guidance on how to use the physical manipulative. Some of the participants didn’tknow what to observe or how to detach some of the members in the truss. Thus, theimplementation of the physical manipulative in an engineering mechanics course may